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

[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.

Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment. "Who created God?" LOL! Even Hawking asks that same stupid question. There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. dblack made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection. Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia. If I did, that would be a lie.

Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention. He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism. But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable! LOL! And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.

Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard. His book will not withstand the test of time.

As for GT, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things." Everyone has, as everyone must. Dawkins has conceded them. No one escapes these imperatives. QW has unwittingly conceded them all. So has Hollie. So has Boss. So has dblack. And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").

So why doesn't GT frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck? That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.

Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"

Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!

I actually met Dawkins after a talk he gave at Berkeley. I was doing a plumbing job in Oakland for an origin build, heard he'd be there a few months before I left for the job and bought a ticket. During the question and answer time I kept trying to get noticed by the microphone guy but never got picked, but because I came with a copy of his book I got it signed by him later. I wasn't a Christian back then but was asking questions and wondering. I read his book and only got convinced that he was nuts. But, hey, would I ever get another chance to here this guy in person, probably not so I did. I assume you mean "The God Delusion" because that's one getting hit hard and that's one I read.

Yeah. Sorry, I am talking about The God Delusion. I edited that post to make it clear. Good eye.

I just realized a problem though I think. Is inferential evidence the right term as opposed to direct evidence? That's what you wrote in your post about constructive logic and I repeated those terms in one of mine. But isn't all evidence inferred?

 

[dblack]

It seemed to me we had worked out the first three. I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right? And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated, so what's your beef? From there four and five follow. In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?

Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):

You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.

The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.

Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe. Is that what you're looking for?

 

[G.T.]

[
"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.

Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment. "Who created God?" LOL! Even Hawking asks that same stupid question. There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. dblack made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection. Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia. If I did, that would be a lie.

Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention. He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism. But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable! LOL! And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.

Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard. His book will not withstand the test of time.

As for GT, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things." Everyone has, as everyone must. Dawkins has conceded them. No one escapes these imperatives. QW has unwittingly conceded them all. So has Hollie. So has Boss. So has dblack. And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").

So why doesn't GT frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck? That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.

Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"

Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!

I think you owe me an apology.

I don't "concede" the five things. I know them, they're not up for debate. "conceding" implies I contended with them.

#2, I never called myself an agnostic atheist. That was someone else.

I don't owe you an apology. You said that the agnostic position is the only rational position, though the bulk of the evidence supports theism, not agnosticism and certainly not atheism. I put in agnostic-atheist just in case you leaned that way. If you don't, fine. That has no bearing on the matter. You also acknowledge that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know all things including the fact that it knew all things. So what's your beef? Did you change your mind again about these things again. Sheesh. LOL!

You do owe the apology.

& the fact of what I said about an all knowing knower is not the same as what YOU glean from it.

We don't agree on what it implies.

Sorry, but I never backed away from it, only what YOU feel it amounts to.

You continuously misrepresent me, my intent, and what I've actually said.

So, you can apologize or I'll just ignore you, pretty much.

Not cuz it matters, but just b/c it's annoying as fuck.

 

[G.T.]

.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
.

See, you took quite a few liberties here, which is either dishonest or wishful thinking.

You took "all knowing knower" and changed it to "supreme entity of origination."

You also said that an entity of origination would have to BE AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER...................which is NOT the same as saying "if an all knower exists, it knows that it knows all."

First of all, an entity of origination doesnt need to be an all knower, and B: an all knower doesnt need to be the entity of origination, and C: positing the axiom of the all knowing knower does NOT also conclude that ONE EXISTS.

You're taking QUITE a few liberties here.

 

[G.T.]

As an aside, I'm working on a track and it's only a chorus at this point. I am looking for opinions from you great philosophers, on how to do the verse parts. Shouyd I rap, or sing, or a mix of both?

Here it is, only the chorus is done, first one comes at about 0:40

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think you owe me an apology.

I don't "concede" the five things. I know them, they're not up for debate. "conceding" implies I contended with them.

#2, I never called myself an agnostic atheist. That was someone else.

Now let me address the problem with the emboldened. You did in fact contend with the essence of number four at one point when you were sure that you could refute it under the terms of justification of organic/classical logic in spite of the well-established fact in academia, as I warned you, that it cannot be falsified under those terms. Screw the dimwits on the Internet. This is a well-established, centuries-old fact of human cognitive in the literature. On the contrary, any argument launched against it under those terms is in reality a premise for an argument that will logically prove the MPTA due to the universal fact of the principle of identity in terms of human cognition at the organic level of being.

After that finally sunk in with you, you defaulted to the position of ultimacy, which I've never disputed and was in fact the first person on this thread to make the nature of that objection abundantly clear to all, long before QW got it into his head to imply that I believed otherwise. But then QW is an utter fraud who got busted by an expert in constructive logic who not only understands it, but has to his credit, as one who has formulated, several original, conceptual-mathematical proofs in constructive logic long before this discussion ever started.

We were talking in terms of constructive logic all along with regard to the issue of ultimacy. Constructive logic was primarily developed to be used for science. That's all. So when one says that not all of the axioms or postulates or theorems of organic/classical logic about metaphysical propositions, especially, are presupposed to be true in constructive logic, all one is really saying is that in constructive logic such propositions are assigned a valid, albeit, unproven value . . . but only because of the LIMITS of scientific inquiry, which can only deal with the inferences derived from direct physical evidence about material things. Further, the universal principle of identity remains the foundation for all forms of logic, which is the only thing I was ever talking about in terms of universality in the first place. It cannot be otherwise, in spite of what QW stupidly implied, for how exactly are we supposed to do any work in logic, regardless of the form, if we essentially say we and the universe don't exist, for that is the first principle of identity?

Do we all understand now just how much of a fraud QW is and just how foolish Fox was to go along with that liar? It's not my intent to gratuitously rub QW's nose in this; rather, it’s my intent to once and for all put that dog down that we might see without dispute that The Five Things necessarily stand without all the bullshit in the way.

GT: "I know them, they're not up for debate."

Good. So is this you're final answer?

Does this mean that you're going to finally stop implying that I have argued anything more than the Five Things, which you yourself have agreed are necessarily true axiomatically, and their ramifications on this thread, that in fact the things I have argued are not "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda"?

Good. I take it we finally have all that "pseudointellectual psychobabble" of yours out of the way now, eh?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Hollie: From asking and checking around,
whatever "anger"' and fundamentalism that you blame on Christianity
is a flaw in human nature that Christianity brings out to be healed.

This is not unique to Christianity, though Christianity offers unique cures
and that is why it keeps coming up in that context.

As I posted to guno, most of the cases of religious abuse and trauma
find true healing and recovery with the help of the RIGHT support and practice these methods have to offer.

Just like bad math is fixed with correct math.
Bad science is corrected with accurate consistent science using the scientific method.

Whatever is wrong in religion is best fixed by fellow people within that sect that can correct their fellow peers.

That has always been the most effective remedy.

So you don't throw out the good science that is needed to fix the bad science.
You don't throw out the right math that is used to fix the wrong math.

And you don't throw out the good and right teachings in any religion
that are used to correct the abuses of that system.

Hollie the only people I've ever seen come to terms with their religious abuse or conflicts
were corrected by people practicing it correctly who could relate and speak to that person.

In Christianity, followers are called to rebuke one another in the spirit of the laws
to establish truth between them as fellow believers
Matthew 18:15-20

So leave the Christians and believers to rebuke each other by the laws we follow.

And for you and other secular gentiles
let's use natural laws and Scientific Methods
to prove our points to each other.

If you don't relate to Christian laws then don't use them.
Let's focus on the ones like Scott Peck who DID
see that the Scientific Method could be used to
prove how these things work!

That would make more sense to secular nontheistic
minds who understand scientific proof.

Let's stick to that the people who respond to science.
There is plenty to do that way, and it will be much
more effective, productive and beneficial.

But Hollie doesn't understand scientific proofs. She doesn't understand much of anything and won't be taught.

I understand science well enough to know that you angry, self-hating Christian extremists are the ones most often science illiterate.

Hi Hollie
And show me where being angry back has ever done anything
but made the situation worse.

And I'll show you where forgiveness has turned people around
to stop the anger on both sides.

Why be part of the same problem you are so against?

The approach you take has never ever worked.
Can you show me ONE person that has changed
their minds by INSULTING their views?

Do YOU even respond to this tactic?

So if you had any respect for Science you would use
the Scientific Method, study approaches that HAVE
stopped religious abuse and anger and applied those instead.

Sorry Hollie

Maybe you are no different from the religious types
who just have to keep venting and pushing their beliefs this way in defense,
instead of using science to prove it.

The people who ARE addressing the divide between religion and science,
HAVE used science to demonstrate the universality of prayer
and the effect of forgiveness on healing the body mind and relations
of not just the subject person, but people around them as well.

One woman prayed for her own forgiveness and healing
and her daughter was healed of disease as a result of the surge
in natural healing energy that connected them.

You could be focusing on how to use science to show how this works.

You are right, that religion has been falsely separated from science.
So why not work with doctors and researchers who have discovered
we CAN bridge this gap, using science, and quit fighting about it.
This CAN be proven how the spiritual healing process works,
and it is perfectly consistent with natural science.

When we're ready to forgive, maybe we'll come to our senses.

Maybe people like you need to vent
as much as the religious types harping equally at each other.

If that is some phase you have to go through
I cannot speed up that process for you.

Only you can decide if there is a better way
to stop the false rejection of science by religion
and religion by science. There are many people
who HAVE discovered this and would LOVE
to have more support of the public and of colleagues
on further research and development.

I guess, when everyone's come to an end
with the fighting and agrees that doesn't go anywhere but in circles.

Thanks Hollie
When this gets old,
I look forward to starting anew!

We need more people like you who are committed to truth,
as others on here, and would be more effective by getting the
same page instead of ripping each other apart.

Whatever it takes to get to the truth, I support you and
everyone in getting there together to reach an agreed understanding.

I'm sure it will be as wonderful as you are,
and I am thankful for what you have to contribute
in the process of resolving these issues.

Yours truly,
Emily

=================================================================
Below is the msg I posted on a site today on outreach to address the fear of pain and suffering
associated with terminal illness, and hope more people look into the research to see what I'm talking about:

"These are the people I would recommend for changing the whole approach to this issue of incureable conditions:
* Dr. Phillip Goldfedder, Neurosurgeon turned therapist and counselor in spiritual healing he has used to more effectively treat more people than using surgery
http://www.healingisyours.com
* Drs, Francis and Judith MacNutt, Christian Healing Ministries, FL
http://www.christianhealingmin.org
Dr. MacNutt is the author of HEALING which along with Agnes Sanford's book The Healing Light would restore the natural connection between spiritual healing with science and medicine as God and Nature intended
* Olivia Reiner 24-hour free helpline 713-829-0899 as shared freely
through nonprofit volunteers with http://www.listentothecriesofthechildren.org

Even if the gift of healing prayer cannot cure all cases of cancer, it has helped remove the pain where medications failed, and has cured schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases that medicine alone could not. Spiritual healing through forgiveness and breaking free from generational curses or karma should only be used in conjunction with medicine and never rejecting treatment that is applied at the same time. Christian deliverance is the only cure I know for occult-related demonic sickness and voices that psychiatric medications only suppress, and has saved lives from suicide, addiction and the after-effects of abuses of all kinds.

Please share these links with anyone else who wants to end their suffering and be free to feel peace."

 

[G.T.]

Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!

I think you owe me an apology.

I don't "concede" the five things. I know them, they're not up for debate. "conceding" implies I contended with them.

#2, I never called myself an agnostic atheist. That was someone else.

Now let me address the problem with the emboldened. You did in fact contend with the essence of number four at one point when you were sure that you could refute it under the terms of justification of organic/classical logic in spite of the well-established fact in academia, as I warned you, that it cannot be falsified under those terms. Screw the dimwits on the Internet. This is a well-established, centuries-old fact of human cognitive in the literature. On the contrary, any argument launched against it under those terms is in reality necessarily a premise for an argument that will logically prove the MPTA due to the universal fact of the principle of identity in terms of human cognition at the very least at the organic level of being.

After that finally sunk in with you, you defaulted to the position of ultimacy, which I've never disputed and was in fact the first person on this thread to make that the nature of that objection abundantly clear to all, long before QW got it into his head to imply I believed otherwise. But then QW is an utter fraud who got busted by an expert in constructive logic who not only understands it, but has to his credit, as one who has formulated, several original, conceptual-mathematical proofs in cognitive logic long before this discussion ever started.

We were talking in terms of constructive logic all along with regard to the issue of ultimacy. Constructive logic was primarily developed to be used for science. That's all. So when one says that not all of the axioms or postulates or theorems of organic/classical logic about metaphysical propositions, especially, are presupposed to be true in constructive logic, all one is really saying is that in constructive logic such propositions are assigned a valid, albeit, unproven value . . . but only because of the LIMITS of scientific inquiry, which can only deal with the inferences derived from direct physical evidence about material things. Further, the universal principle of identity remains the foundation for all forms of logic, which is the only thing I was ever talking about in terms of universality in the first place. It cannot be otherwise, in spite of what QW stupidly implied, for how exactly are we supposed to do any work in logic, regardless of the form, if we essentially say we and the universe don't exist, for that is the first principle of identity?

Do we all understand now just how much of a fraud QW is and just how foolish Fox was to go along with that liar? It's not my intent to gratuitously rub QW's nose in this; rather, it’s my intent to once and for all put that dog down that we might see without dispute that The Five Things necessarily stand without all the bullshit in the way.

GT: "I know them, they're not up for debate."

Good. So is this you're final answer?

Does this mean that you're going to finally stop implying that I have argued anything more than the very same Five Things, which you yourself have agreed are necessarily true axiomatically, and their ramifications on this thread, that in fact the things I have argued are not "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda"?

Good. I take it we finally have all that "pseudointellectual psychobabble" of yours out of the way now, eh?

No, the problem is that we conclude very different things from "the five things," and I still have a huge problem with the MPTA, HUGE HUGE PROBLEM.

I DONT AGREE that logic needs a mind to ground it.

I DONT KNOW if an all knowing knower exists.

I DONT agree that arguing against MPTA affirms MPTA, I don't see any basis for that and also think it's an ass holish position.

 

[emilynghiem]

The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.

Not religion.

I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the idea the religion may have preceded the modern version of sentience. Which would fall in line with it's central role of managing morality.

It's impossible for religion to precede sentience, there is no such thing as "modern sentience." Modern knowledge, sure. Modern morals, sure. Modern sentience is not a thing.

The philosophy of science precedes science. dblack is talking about something else.

And your "philosophy of science" has been supplanted by the discipline of the scientific method. The Age of Enlightenment began the evisceration of metaphysics and the shroud of fear and superstition the was the province of the church. Philosophy and theology were relegated to their place at the back of the line as science carried exploration and knowledge to the scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. It is undeniable that the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of biblical tales and fables.

Wow Hollie Thanks for this wonderful statement!

Unlike you I read it as hope that we can continue on this trend and finish using science to prove
what is going on with things like mental and physical illness and natural healing, and also how
the same process of healing can totally change relationships that are divided over religious and political conflicts.

All this can be proven by demonstrating and measuring the before/after effects of forgiveness
on people, not just their mental and physical health, but relationships with others, so it is sociological in impact as well.

Hollie when you talk about science forming a consensus
MAKE SURE you don't leave out the studies on things like
prayer and spiritual healing that can form a consensus between science and religion.

I believe that is where all this is heading.
And I hope it is people like you that are on the forefront,
pushing for consensus using science to resolve the issues in religion.

Thanks so much
and I hope you see the positive side
that science has to offer religion.

If science is seen or used as a "threat" of course it's going to be rejected.

When more people can understand that science is a friend
and can be used to establish and explain truth to more people,
why would anyone reject science?

Maybe we've been presenting it wrong.
I used to tutor students who were scared of math, and had to
teach them math was their friend and would help them get and
check the right answers every time.

Maybe if we use science to help study and correct problems,
it won't be so demonized as something to be abused for political propaganda.

How can we get on the same page?

 

[emilynghiem]

[
"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.

Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment. "Who created God?" LOL! Even Hawking asks that same stupid question. There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. dblack made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection. Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia. If I did, that would be a lie.

Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention. He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism. But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable! LOL! And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.

Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard. His book will not withstand the test of time.

As for GT, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things." Everyone has, as everyone must. Dawkins has conceded them. No one escapes these imperatives. QW has unwittingly conceded them all. So has Hollie. So has Boss. So has dblack. And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").

So why doesn't GT frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck? That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.

Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"

Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!

I think you owe me an apology.

I don't "concede" the five things. I know them, they're not up for debate. "conceding" implies I contended with them.

#2, I never called myself an agnostic atheist. That was someone else.

I don't owe you an apology. You said that the agnostic position is the only rational position, though the bulk of the evidence supports theism, not agnosticism and certainly not atheism. I put in agnostic-atheist just in case you leaned that way. If you don't, fine. That has no bearing on the matter. You also acknowledge that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know all things including the fact that it knew all things. So what's your beef? Did you change your mind again about these things again. Sheesh. LOL!

Hi M.D. Rawlings:
Regarding theism or nontheism, agnosticism or atheism,
what I have found causes conflicts between these is people rejecting each other.

Whatever "ism" that is.

No matter where you or I are with our beliefs, or others,
as long as we are OPEN to resolving conflict and picking out points where we agree as true and consistent,
THAT is the "ism" that works, regardless of our labels that may remain conflicting.

We may never agree what to call these things, some people use these words loosely
or in conflicting ways with someone else. Why argue unless it's to correct things together,
to make things right between us, not prove something or someone wrong.

What matters is what you and dblack, Hollie and G.T. are doing here
which is identifying what points we agree on and which ones we get hung up on and why.

As long as we map out where our lines cross or intersect,
we can align. We can work out our language and perceptual differences.
And it doesn't matter so much what our views are,
because those can change over time, and defy definitions we try to pin them down to.

It's best to keep doing what you are doing here,
and work out the linguistics and logistics of what we do or do not follow.

MD that's good enough!

None of us is perfectly forgiving or free from bias, so we are going to run into conflicts.
It's not just atheists who are going to, but everyone from all sides
are going to have to rethink some of our ways that don't apply to the next guy who's an exception to that rule or label.

This is great exploration, MD, so thanks for helping to map out some points.
Please do not get hung up on little labels or issues,
let's stick to the principles and connect the dots.

Thanks everyone for playing along, too.
I think this is super and so are you! ;-)

The greatest thing is discovering we will not convert each other's views
but learn how to talk about and around them, even where we have conflicts.
So what. Those are going to come up anyway. How do we get past
that and get to the good stuff!

 

[emilynghiem]

Have you not realized that your silly, philosophical musings as cover for your bible thumping is as pompous as it is an embarassment?

Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

Oh?

The Five Things Everybody Necessarily Knows/Concedes​

I haven't unreasonably asserted anything but the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin may exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

1. You've conceded that we exist.

Check.

2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.

Check.

3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind the idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

Check.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

Check.

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of number 4 cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

Check.

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that everybody knows to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of your presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?

But looky here. We have a clue as to which personality is currently at the helm. It appears to be the personality that believes itself to be God: "Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendent law keeper"!

Amazing! This personality claims to known something about absolute ultimacy, just like Q.W. does all the time, that no finite mind could possibly assert under organic/classical logic or under alternate-world forms of logic.

Hi MD About your five points.
1. The fact we AGREE that we exist is presuming a lot, but it shows that we
can CHOOSE to agree on this. We don't have to. We could argue as some do that perhaps
none of this life really exists and we are living under delusions on a mental level that can neither be proven nor disproven,
like a Matrix we can't get out of anyway so might as well play along and enjoy life as we know it.

So what makes us trust to assume this and NOT rebel against each other,
thinking the other person is "pushing some reality on us" that can't be proven and must be some "control" game.

Some psychiatric patients cannot work with doctors when they think this way and don't trust ANYONE.
So what prevents us from being like that?
What allows us to have faith that "nobody is out to get us"
like 98% of the world is pushing this "reality" and we are among the 2% not buying into the game.

Since people FEAR "religion" as some majority out there pushing some agenda for the wrong reasons,
what allows us NOT to see "reality" that way, but to trust we're talking about and looking at the same reality.

2. For #2 what's wrong with leaving it open either way?
If some people see the universe as the default, or some people point to a source of creation of the universe,
why can't we focus on LAWS that are true for the universe where it doesn't matter if these have a beginning or not.

We can still use the same math/number system, whether we argue it always existed, or the Arabs or Greeks
deserve more credit, or that values/quantity exist as concepts REGARDLESS of the systems of symbols we use
to describe their quantity or relationships or process between them.

4. For #4 can we agree already that if God represents infinite wisdom or knowledge of all things beyond man's finite limited knowledge, perception and ability to understand or express such collective all-encompassing truths,
then God "can neither be proven or disprove to exist" because what God represents exceeds the ability of man on all counts.

Can we get over this already?

3. for #3 instead of arguing over atheism and "which person means what" by that term, on either side of the theist/atheist divide, can we agree to stick to the terms "theist" or "nontheist" and use these NEUTRALLY depending if people think in terms of a personified God or religion or if people think in secular terms that don't depend on personifying God or Jesus.
And don't attach judgments or values to that distinction, either it is theist or nontheist, religious or secular, as a language.

(On that note, I wanted to ask Hollie and others
do you have the same reaction when someone refers to Mother Nature
as to when someone refers to God?
Here's an example, a recent article that uses the term Mother Nature:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/what-were-afraid-to-say-about-ebola.html
"What is not getting said publicly, despite briefings and discussions in the inner circles of the world’s public health agencies, is that we are in totally uncharted waters and that Mother Nature is the only force in charge of the crisis at this time."

What would that read like if you substituted the word God and does it make a difference
HOW we might personify life or nature using such symbolism? Don't we mean Life? or Nature regardless?)

5. For #5 instead of arguing that nothing will be enough to prove God anyway

I offered to focus on proving that forgiveness is the key factor
that can bring about the healing of humanity described in the Bible and taught in religions as oneness or
interconnectedness or fulfillment of all laws to bring heaven on earth, or the rapture or the coming
of Jesus or Justice to save humanity etc.

this is like stopping arguments over whether "math" is good, bad, both, needs to be thrown out or used correctly,
and just USE the math to solve problems and demonstrate in the process it is consistent and valid.

How can we move from fighting over problems we're having with math
and find ways to use it to solve problems instead.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I just realized a problem though I think. Is inferential evidence the right term as opposed to direct evidence? That's what you wrote in your post about constructive logic and I repeated those terms in one of mine. But isn't all evidence inferred?

I didn't mentioned it because I knew what you meant.

That's a good observation though. It's cool that you came to it on your own.

Be careful with the term inferential evidence . . . outside the terminological box of constructive logic, precisely because all theories, working hypotheses, and mathematical or linguistic propositions are inferred from or premised on some form of evidence. Technically, evidence is not inferred; rather, working propositions/hypotheses are intuited from data, tested and verified against the evidence (reproducible results via repetitious experimentation) toward establishing proofs (axioms, postulates or theorems). (Of course some propositions are simply true, initiatively or tautologically.)

The term inferential evidence has a specific meaning of correlation in constructive logic, which goes to the construct of inhabited proof.

In other words, the metaphysical axioms, postulates or theorems of organic/classical logic, for example, which are regarded to be evidence in their own right as they are duly established, are inferential evidence in constructive logic, not direct evidence.

Note, when I'm not speaking in terms of constructive logic, I always write things like "theories or proofs inferred from evidence, not inferential evidence as that term correlated with metaphysical axioms . . . in organic/classical logic only.

On the other hand, though I don't think I have, if I have ever bungled that correlation in anything I've written, just disregard it and think of it in the right way, as that would have been a brain fart. I have been known to have them from time to time, like the one you pointed about free will, wherein I poorly expressed an idea that as written actually meant something I didn’t mean to imply.

 

[Justin Davis]

I didn't mentioned it because I knew what you meant.

That's a good observation though. It's cool that you came to it on your own.

Be careful with the term inferential evidence . . . outside the terminological box of constructive logic, precisely because all theories, working hypotheses, and mathematical or linguistic propositions are inferred from or premised on some form of evidence. Technically, evidence is not inferred; rather, working propositions/hypotheses are intuited from data, tested and verified against the evidence (reproducible results via repetitious experimentation) toward establishing proofs (axioms, postulates or theorems). (Of course some propositions are simply true, initiatively or tautologically.)

The term inferential evidence has a specific meaning of correlation in constructive logic, which goes to the construct of inhabited proof.

In other words, the metaphysical axioms, postulates or theorems of organic/classical logic, for example, which are regarded to be evidence in their own right as they are duly established, are inferential evidence in constructive logic, not direct evidence.

Note, when I'm not speaking in terms of constructive logic, I always write things like "theories or proofs inferred from evidence, not inferential evidence as that term correlated with metaphysical axioms . . . in organic/classical logic only.

On the other hand, though I don't think I have, if I have ever bungled that correlation in anything I've written, just disregard it and think of it in the right way, as that would have been a brain fart. I have been known to have them from time to time, like the one you pointed about free will, wherein I poorly expressed an idea that as written actually meant something I didn’t mean to imply.

Okay, so I did say it wrong. I'm glad because when I thought about it more it didn't make sense. As far as I know you've never done that; I just got the wrong idea from your post on constructive logic but now I get it. It just applies to metaphysical proofs that can't be assumed in science. or some types of logic.

 

[Justin Davis]

The philosophy of science precedes science. dblack is talking about something else.

And your "philosophy of science" has been supplanted by the discipline of the scientific method. The Age of Enlightenment began the evisceration of metaphysics and the shroud of fear and superstition the was the province of the church. Philosophy and theology were relegated to their place at the back of the line as science carried exploration and knowledge to the scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. It is undeniable that the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of biblical tales and fables.[/QUOTE]

Wow Hollie Thanks for this wonderful statement!

Unlike you I read it as hope that we can continue on this trend and finish using science to prove
what is going on with things like mental and physical illness and natural healing, and also how
the same process of healing can totally change relationships that are divided over religious and political conflicts.

All this can be proven by demonstrating and measuring the before/after effects of forgiveness
on people, not just their mental and physical health, but relationships with others, so it is sociological in impact as well.

Hollie when you talk about science forming a consensus
MAKE SURE you don't leave out the studies on things like
prayer and spiritual healing that can form a consensus between science and religion.

I believe that is where all this is heading.
And I hope it is people like you that are on the forefront,
pushing for consensus using science to resolve the issues in religion.

Thanks so much
and I hope you see the positive side
that science has to offer religion.

If science is seen or used as a "threat" of course it's going to be rejected.

When more people can understand that science is a friend
and can be used to establish and explain truth to more people,
why would anyone reject science?

Maybe we've been presenting it wrong.
I used to tutor students who were scared of math, and had to
teach them math was their friend and would help them get and
check the right answers every time.

Maybe if we use science to help study and correct problems,
it won't be so demonized as something to be abused for political propaganda.

How can we get on the same page?[/QUOTE]

But what Hollie just said is not right. "My philosophy of science." It has nothing to do with me. It is a fact that philosophy science necessarily precedes science. That's a fact of reality, nothing has changed. She doesn't know what she's talking about. She doesn't know what dblack or I are talking about at all.Data doesn't interpret itself. We do that using the scientific method defined by philosophy or based on some naturalistic theory for science. People who don't understand that don't really understand science.

 

[westwall]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

Nope. Not one. On the other hand is there one for the denial of a God?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hi MD About your five points.
1. The fact we AGREE that we exist is presuming a lot, but it shows that we
can CHOOSE to agree on this. We don't have to. We could argue as some do that perhaps
none of this life really exists and we are living under delusions on a mental level that can neither be proven nor disproven,
like a Matrix we can't get out of anyway so might as well play along and enjoy life as we know it.

So what makes us trust to assume this and NOT rebel against each other,
thinking the other person is "pushing some reality on us" that can't be proven and must be some "control" game.

Some psychiatric patients cannot work with doctors when they think this way and don't trust ANYONE.
So what prevents us from being like that?
What allows us to have faith that "nobody is out to get us"
like 98% of the world is pushing this "reality" and we are among the 2% not buying into the game.

Since people FEAR "religion" as some majority out there pushing some agenda for the wrong reasons,
what allows us NOT to see "reality" that way, but to trust we're talking about and looking at the same reality.

2. For #2 what's wrong with leaving it open either way?
If some people see the universe as the default, or some people point to a source of creation of the universe,
why can't we focus on LAWS that are true for the universe where it doesn't matter if these have a beginning or not.

We can still use the same math/number system, whether we argue it always existed, or the Arabs or Greeks
deserve more credit, or that values/quantity exist as concepts REGARDLESS of the systems of symbols we use
to describe their quantity or relationships or process between them.

4. For #4 can we agree already that if God represents infinite wisdom or knowledge of all things beyond man's finite limited knowledge, perception and ability to understand or express such collective all-encompassing truths,
then God "can neither be proven or disprove to exist" because what God represents exceeds the ability of man on all counts.

Can we get over this already?

3. for #3 instead of arguing over atheism and "which person means what" by that term, on either side of the theist/atheist divide, can we agree to stick to the terms "theist" or "nontheist" and use these NEUTRALLY depending if people think in terms of a personified God or religion or if people think in secular terms that don't depend on personifying God or Jesus.
And don't attach judgments or values to that distinction, either it is theist or nontheist, religious or secular, as a language.

(On that note, I wanted to ask Hollie and others
do you have the same reaction when someone refers to Mother Nature
as to when someone refers to God?
Here's an example, a recent article that uses the term Mother Nature:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/what-were-afraid-to-say-about-ebola.html
"What is not getting said publicly, despite briefings and discussions in the inner circles of the world’s public health agencies, is that we are in totally uncharted waters and that Mother Nature is the only force in charge of the crisis at this time."

What would that read like if you substituted the word God and does it make a difference
HOW we might personify life or nature using such symbolism? Don't we mean Life? or Nature regardless?)

5. For #5 instead of arguing that nothing will be enough to prove God anyway

I offered to focus on proving that forgiveness is the key factor
that can bring about the healing of humanity described in the Bible and taught in religions as oneness or
interconnectedness or fulfillment of all laws to bring heaven on earth, or the rapture or the coming
of Jesus or Justice to save humanity etc.

this is like stopping arguments over whether "math" is good, bad, both, needs to be thrown out or used correctly,
and just USE the math to solve problems and demonstrate in the process it is consistent and valid.

How can we move from fighting over problems we're having with math
and find ways to use it to solve problems instead.

On 1 and 2: I already pointed out that folks can argue anti-realism or irrationalism if they want, but I don't have to take then seriously regardless of what the actual nature of these existents might be. As I said the idea that we exist and the universe exists is something we do as a matter of practicality. That's just the way it is. Anyone one who agrees with that is bound to accept the other three things and their ramifications. I've written enough on this thread showing why all of that's true. It just needs to be rightly understood.

As for 3, I do leave that open. The potentiality of God's existence as the origin of the universe simply can't be logically eliminated. That's all. Folks are going to believe what they want, but they're not going fool with the lie that their denial there be any substance behind the idea of God means they're not aware of the fact that their knowledge about the idea of God in their heads is not there because of the evidence of the existence of the universe. That lie doesn't fly. That's all.

4 is also left open. The highest conceivable state of divinity simply avoids begging the question.

As far as proving God's existence (5), in organic/classical logic, the necessity of God's existence is an axiom. In science its an unknown/unprovable potentiality.

Simple.

 

[Hollie]

The philosophy of science precedes science. dblack is talking about something else.

And your "philosophy of science" has been supplanted by the discipline of the scientific method. The Age of Enlightenment began the evisceration of metaphysics and the shroud of fear and superstition the was the province of the church. Philosophy and theology were relegated to their place at the back of the line as science carried exploration and knowledge to the scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. It is undeniable that the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of biblical tales and fables.

Wow Hollie Thanks for this wonderful statement!

Unlike you I read it as hope that we can continue on this trend and finish using science to prove
what is going on with things like mental and physical illness and natural healing, and also how
the same process of healing can totally change relationships that are divided over religious and political conflicts.

All this can be proven by demonstrating and measuring the before/after effects of forgiveness
on people, not just their mental and physical health, but relationships with others, so it is sociological in impact as well.

Hollie when you talk about science forming a consensus
MAKE SURE you don't leave out the studies on things like
prayer and spiritual healing that can form a consensus between science and religion.

I believe that is where all this is heading.
And I hope it is people like you that are on the forefront,
pushing for consensus using science to resolve the issues in religion.

Thanks so much
and I hope you see the positive side
that science has to offer religion.

If science is seen or used as a "threat" of course it's going to be rejected.

When more people can understand that science is a friend
and can be used to establish and explain truth to more people,
why would anyone reject science?

Maybe we've been presenting it wrong.
I used to tutor students who were scared of math, and had to
teach them math was their friend and would help them get and
check the right answers every time.

Maybe if we use science to help study and correct problems,
it won't be so demonized as something to be abused for political propaganda.

How can we get on the same page?[/QUOTE]

But what Hollie just said is not right. "My philosophy of science." It has nothing to do with me. It is a fact that philosophy science necessarily precedes science. That's a fact of reality, nothing has changed. She doesn't know what she's talking about. She doesn't know what dblack or I are talking about at all.Data doesn't interpret itself. We do that using the scientific method defined by philosophy or based on some naturalistic theory for science. People who don't understand that don't really understand science.

What Hollie said is right. What Justin Davis did not do was actually address what Hollie wrote but chose instead to babble-on with some irrelevancy.

What religious extremists such as Justin Davis fail to understand is that until theology / creation science / supernaturalism and Magic can be used in development of a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural / magical creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Supernatural / magical intervention as a hypothesis is simply religious dogma under a guise and lacks both credibility as a useful hypothesis and a plausible explanation for life on the planet.

 

[emilynghiem]

But what Hollie just said is not right. "My philosophy of science." It has nothing to do with me. It is a fact that philosophy science necessarily precedes science. That's a fact of reality, nothing has changed. She doesn't know what she's talking about. She doesn't know what dblack or I are talking about at all.Data doesn't interpret itself. We do that using the scientific method defined by philosophy or based on some naturalistic theory for science. People who don't understand that don't really understand science.

Hi Justin Davis
Can we start with what people DO know and DO want to use as their default starting point.
And work from there anyway?
Nobody has perfectly objective, all inclusive starting point.
We all start with what we know and then grow from there.

Why not be okay with where we are coming from.
And see how we can work WITH those parameters
and sort out things that will help us identify key points or factors in common,
that serve a meaningful purpose to us all regardless of our ways and means,
not nitpick or get stuck on things that drive us farther apart.

 

[Hollie]

Hi MD About your five points.
1. The fact we AGREE that we exist is presuming a lot, but it shows that we
can CHOOSE to agree on this. We don't have to. We could argue as some do that perhaps
none of this life really exists and we are living under delusions on a mental level that can neither be proven nor disproven,
like a Matrix we can't get out of anyway so might as well play along and enjoy life as we know it.

So what makes us trust to assume this and NOT rebel against each other,
thinking the other person is "pushing some reality on us" that can't be proven and must be some "control" game.

Some psychiatric patients cannot work with doctors when they think this way and don't trust ANYONE.
So what prevents us from being like that?
What allows us to have faith that "nobody is out to get us"
like 98% of the world is pushing this "reality" and we are among the 2% not buying into the game.

Since people FEAR "religion" as some majority out there pushing some agenda for the wrong reasons,
what allows us NOT to see "reality" that way, but to trust we're talking about and looking at the same reality.

2. For #2 what's wrong with leaving it open either way?
If some people see the universe as the default, or some people point to a source of creation of the universe,
why can't we focus on LAWS that are true for the universe where it doesn't matter if these have a beginning or not.

We can still use the same math/number system, whether we argue it always existed, or the Arabs or Greeks
deserve more credit, or that values/quantity exist as concepts REGARDLESS of the systems of symbols we use
to describe their quantity or relationships or process between them.

4. For #4 can we agree already that if God represents infinite wisdom or knowledge of all things beyond man's finite limited knowledge, perception and ability to understand or express such collective all-encompassing truths,
then God "can neither be proven or disprove to exist" because what God represents exceeds the ability of man on all counts.

Can we get over this already?

3. for #3 instead of arguing over atheism and "which person means what" by that term, on either side of the theist/atheist divide, can we agree to stick to the terms "theist" or "nontheist" and use these NEUTRALLY depending if people think in terms of a personified God or religion or if people think in secular terms that don't depend on personifying God or Jesus.
And don't attach judgments or values to that distinction, either it is theist or nontheist, religious or secular, as a language.

(On that note, I wanted to ask Hollie and others
do you have the same reaction when someone refers to Mother Nature
as to when someone refers to God?
Here's an example, a recent article that uses the term Mother Nature:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/what-were-afraid-to-say-about-ebola.html
"What is not getting said publicly, despite briefings and discussions in the inner circles of the world’s public health agencies, is that we are in totally uncharted waters and that Mother Nature is the only force in charge of the crisis at this time."

What would that read like if you substituted the word God and does it make a difference
HOW we might personify life or nature using such symbolism? Don't we mean Life? or Nature regardless?)

5. For #5 instead of arguing that nothing will be enough to prove God anyway

I offered to focus on proving that forgiveness is the key factor
that can bring about the healing of humanity described in the Bible and taught in religions as oneness or
interconnectedness or fulfillment of all laws to bring heaven on earth, or the rapture or the coming
of Jesus or Justice to save humanity etc.

this is like stopping arguments over whether "math" is good, bad, both, needs to be thrown out or used correctly,
and just USE the math to solve problems and demonstrate in the process it is consistent and valid.

How can we move from fighting over problems we're having with math
and find ways to use it to solve problems instead.

On 1 and 2: I already pointed out that folks can argue anti-realism or irrationalism if they want, but I don't have to take then seriously regardless of what the actual nature of these existents might be. As I said the idea that we exist and the universe exists is something we do as a matter of practicality. That's just the way it is. Anyone one who agrees with that is bound to accept the other three things and their ramifications. I've written enough on this thread showing why all of that's true. It just needs to be rightly understood.

As for 3, I do leave that open. The potentiality of God's existence as the origin of the universe simply can't be logically eliminated. That's all. Folks are going to believe what they want, but they're not going fool with the lie that their denial there be any substance behind the idea of God means they're not aware of the fact that their knowledge about the idea of God in their heads is not there because of the evidence of the existence of the universe. That lie doesn't fly. That's all.

4 is also left open. The highest conceivable state of divinity simply avoids begging the question.

As far as proving God's existence (5), in organic/classical logic, the necessity of God's existence is an axiom. In science its an unknown/unprovable potentiality.

Simple.

Simple for you simpletons.

For all your time spent pontificating and appealing to magic and supernatural realms, we know with certainty that every discovery about the natural world had been absent any of your alleged gods, intervention by magical spirits or supernatural forces. Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of your alleged gods, spirits, spirit realms and super-magical forces are nothing more than relics of ancient tales and fables. I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know that your particular, sectarian version of gods / supernatural agents could be responsible for creation, your appeals to magical gods are futile send time wasting. .

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: "What Hollie said is right. What Justin Davis did not do was actually address what Hollie wrote but chose instead to babble-on with some irrelevancy."

What religious extremists such as Justin Davis fail to understand is that until theology / creation science / supernaturalism and Magic can be used in development of a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural / magical creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Supernatural / magical intervention as a hypothesis is simply religious dogma under a guise and lacks both credibility as a useful hypothesis and a plausible explanation for life on the planet.

Sorry if I lost "who said what" from previous copies.

1. RE: What Justin Davis did not do was actually address what Hollie wrote but chose instead to babble-on with some irrelevancy.
1. I also felt this way when I read Hollie's (?) statement about angry fundamental Christians rejecting science, basically.
Because that is ALSO made "irrelevant" by applying science to spiritual healing and studies of prayer and the effects of deliverance/exorcism on curing people made sick or addicted/delusional with voices after playing with occult or cult practices.

2. Hollie there ARE doctors who have been studying the effects of the DARK types of magic (voodoo, the Hawaiian death curse spell, etc.) and the process of freeing people from the effects of these by using spiritual healing prayer and deliverance/exorcism methods of focusing on FORGIVING the bad karma or curses from the past that keep people stuck in negative victimhood and addictive/self-destructive cycles of behavior.

This IS a relevant way to show BOTH the patterns of the dark spiritual energy like the harmful practices of witchcraft, sorcery etc based on ill will.
VERSUS
the positive LIGHT life-giving energy that is naturally existent
and which spiritual healing in Christianity is used to free up and circulate stronger
so people's minds and bodies can heal themselves easier as they are designed.

This isn't an either/or mutually exclusive diametric relationship.

Science doesn't have to negate religion if both are taught consistently with natural universal laws.

This can be proven consistent with each other.

But neither side can start with presuming the conclusion that one rejects the other.
You still would have to conduct an actual proof,
like a contrapositive proof of starting with the OPPOSITE assumption
and then working through the steps to show the contradiction.

Scott Peck did not believe this "garbage" of demonic voices was real and could be cast out with exorcism.
As a professional practicing doctor of psychiatry, he was convinced such cases of schizophrenia were delusions
in the minds of the patients (focusing on the physical neural disorder or chemical reactions) and needed medication.

But at least he set up a proof, even though he INTENDED to prove his friend wrong,
He thought he could show that all the "demonic voice" could be debunked using science.

Instead, he proved himself wrong, and found that the voices and personalities
knew things beyond his patients' conscious AND unconscious knowledge
that only a spiritual being or connection could have come up with to get into his head and
speak his worst fears and shortcomings back to him, as the priest had told them these "demons" will do.

So it proved to Peck that something spiritual was going on,
and that in applying the methods of exorcism, sure enough,
all the spiritual patterns and stages that were predicted to follow in order,
were observable and Peck recognized this as something quantifiable, measurable and predictable by science.

So he concluded the scientific method and process used in medicine
of identifying causes of sickness, applying the treatment and monitoring the progress
DID apply to exorcism and deliverance therapy as a valid form of treating such patients.

in addition to changing his mind
he concluded that the greatest barrier was this false division between science and religion.

And he urged fellow professionals to follow up with formal research and development
in this field, to study the spiritual diagnoses, stages and treatment/cure in exorcism/deliverance
in order to help patients that this applied to and would benefit from, to the point of saving
their lives and their minds instead of losing both to incureable disorders.