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

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this. Atheist = God doesn't exist. There's no room for quibbling about that. That's what the term means. a = no; theist = God. No God or God doesn't exist. So precisely what is the atheist saying does objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind? What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on? The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.

Answer: The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.

Answer: His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence: the universe.

Simple.

It follows that even the atheist knows that "we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe." The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic. The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.

Simple.

So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.

 

[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?

I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this. Atheist = God doesn't exist. There's no room for quibbling about that. That's what the term means. a = no; theist = God. No God or God doesn't exist. So precisely what is the atheist saying does objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind? What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on? The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.

Answer: The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.

Answer: His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence: the universe.

Simple.

It follows that even the atheist knows that "we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe." The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic. The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.

Simple.

So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.

You're a fucking idiot.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

You just don't grasp the ramifications. Your limited apprehension about what an all-knowing knower would have to be has no bearing on the reality of the ramifications that you don't see yet. Certain things necessarily follow from what would have to be true about an all-knowing knower. You just haven't thought it through. That's all.

If I were to apologize to you as if these ramifications didn't exist, that would be like lying to you. I told you I would never lie to you.

 

[G.T.]

Ehhhhh...buzzer - false. The ramifications do not logically follow.

 

[emilynghiem]

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. .

????

Hollie why do you keep harping on "magical gods"

Even one of my atheist friends who doesn't believe in God or Christianity
benefited from the Spiritual Healing he used to get rid of the demonic rages in his mind.

They no longer bother him and now he is able to work with doctors on his physical treatment unlike before.

"magical gods" are not necessary for the teachings and practices in Christianity, as both my atheist friend has worked with and is STILL atheist (and another atheist friend also teaches 'abundance of free grace" to help people with healing and forgiveness and he also remains atheist and doesn't believe in any "magical gods" to share this universal message).

Hollie to make it WORTH your time,
I have offered to set up a 10 million dollar bet
1. that spiritual healing can be demonstrated to cure
cases of physical and mental illness as claimed,
2. that this is ENOUGH to resolve the issues over God and Jesus
(and prove there is a pattern and process to building consensus)
by focusing on the impact of Forgiveness on healing
human minds bodies and relationships,
3. and that the SAME process of spiritual healing through forgiveness
can also resolve religious and political conflicts
and change our social institutions worldwide.

So if you really think there is no way science can prove
anything that is taught in this "magical realm of religion"
I bet you 10 million dollars it can be proven using
science and statistics to show a pattern,
correlating forgiveness with reconciliation and healing,
and correlating unforgiven conflict and division
with FAILURE to reach a consensus that preserves and includes our differences,
religious political or otherwise.

So this would prove that YOUR inability to reconcile
is based on YOUR OWN unforgiveness
and is not the fault of either atheists, nontheists, theists or Christians
because more of us of all these ways HAVE reconciled already
because we FORGIVE each other's ways.

That is the issue, not just theism vs. atheism.
It's whether or not we forgive that determines if we reconcile
and agree in truth or not.

The truth is what it is.
What is going wrong is if we cannot forgive each other's differences
then we block our perception, communication, and relations
from coming to a consensus about it.

Our language will not change in terms of theistic or nontheistic viewpoints.
but how we interpret and work together changes
when we forgive these differences and quit fearing or blaming them as the problem.

Hollie I hope you are smarter than me, and wise enough to figure out
what I am saying despite my inability to express it clearly.

I hate being disappointed when I think I've found
someone like you smart enough to get what I'm saying but
I still fail to explain it.

My apologies where this is my fault.
I hope you get it anyway.

Either way I bet you 10 million dollars that science
can prove spiritual healing works naturally and effectively.
And that proof process is enough to form a consensus
on God, Jesus and the Bible because it requires
the same steps of forgiveness and reconciliation between people.

Let me know if you want to bet.

And I'm happy to work with you to contact
Dawkins, Hawkings and any person or foundation willing to fund
either side of the bet, raise 5 million for each side, and donate the winnings to
the charity or charities as chosen by the team members depending on the outcome.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.

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.

But see I didn't change anything, I merely got straight to the point regarding the inherently self-evident, logical ramifications about what the construct God ultimately represents.

Forget about the all-knowing knower thing; it's confusing you, though from that you should be able to get the point.

Just get this, as I wrote elsewhere:

It does not matter what persons ultimately believe God to be anywhere below the absolutely infinite standard of perfection. That is the highest conceivable standard. To assume anything less is to beg the question. Define something lower, I'll define something higher and so on . . . unto infinity.​

Simple.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Ehhhhh...buzzer - false. The ramifications do not logically follow.

So define something lower than absolute perfection for the notion of God as the potentiality of ultimate origin and I'll define something higher unto infinity. . . .

This is not rocket science. It's very simple. Stop begging the question and cut to the chase: God is the supreme order of things as the ultimate uncaused cause of all other existents. That's what the term God means!
_________________________

Edit: God means the uncreated Creator. If we're not talking about the supreme Being Who created all other existents, you know, the only Being Who could possibly know all there is to know about all things or persons that exist as the Creator of all other things and persons that exist, we're not talking about God the uncreated Creator, but a lesser being that was created: a creature, not the Creator. Hello!

Do you have to be dragged kicking and screaming to every axiomatic/tautological fact of logic?

MOVE ON!

1, 2, 3 and 4 are established.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this. Atheist = God doesn't exist. There's no room for quibbling about that. That's what the term means. a = no; theist = God. No God or God doesn't exist. So precisely what is the atheist saying does objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind? What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on? The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.

Answer: The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.

Answer: His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence: the universe.

Simple.

It follows that even the atheist knows that "we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe." The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic. The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.

Simple.

So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.

Dear MD there is an added emotional factor tied to theism and Christianity.
Because of past abuses, crusade/genocides, and general "@$$ holiness" associated with theists/Christian religion,
then people like my own atheist friend who can't stand Christians
will not go along with ANYTHING that is seen as enabling, tolerating or siding with them in any way
because they don't want to encourage any more such abuses.

The human association with religious abuse is so strong,
that my friend would even deny help to his own daughter because he can't stand it himself.
Even though Christian spiritual healing is what saved him from his own demons,
he will not share this with other people because it is just too painful.

So MD you have a huge emotional reason why people will not favor anything theist or appear to be associated with it.

Now, what do you propose to give incentive to change
WITHOUT people feeling pushed by Christian theists they CANNOT STAND.

I propose a 10 million dollar bet where proceeds go to charities chosen by the team members,
to prove that it is enough to prove the effects and process of spiritual healing based on forgiveness therapies,
in order to form a consensus on God Jesus and the Bible
and to solve religious and political conflicts in the same process.

So there is a logistical practical use of these teachings done through religion,
and this can be demonstrated, documented and/or proven by science
by collecting the statistics to show correlated and patterns.

And this same process applies to people of ALL views
so we don't need to nitpick over what kind of theist or atheist believes this or that or the other.

As long as people agree what team to work with where they don't fear a bias
is being imposed unfairly to skew the process, then it's fair.

We had a whole thread where people couldn't agree what God or atheism means
because people use the words differently, right or wrong, these weren't all the same.

So what.

Just form teams anyway, see if we can set up a proof
of spiritual healing to show that what matters is if we
forgive or not. The more we forgive we are better able to
reconcile with people of different groups even conflicting beliefs.

And the studies would prove this as a correlating factor:
forgiveness with healing and reconciliation across religious and political lines
unforgiven conflicts with division and inability to work across those same lines.

it's not a matter of affiliation or label
but the degree to which we can forgive and include each other, regardless of our differences,
instead of reject and divide.

How is that ramification NOT applicable to people,
when it would change the face of politics and religion
to agree that forgiveness is the key, so we can no longer
keep following or electing leaders that push division and bullying that goes against this.

This would totally change our world.

 

[G.T.]

Ehhhhh...buzzer - false. The ramifications do not logically follow.

So define something lower than absolute perfection and tell me you're not begging the question. LOL!

This is not rocket science. It's very simple. Cut to the chase and move on. . . .

.

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.

But see I didn't change anything, I merely got straight to the point regarding the inherently self-evident logical ramifications about what the construct God ultimately represents.

Forget about the all-knowing knower thing, it's confusing you though from that you should be able to get the point:

Just get this, as I wrote elsewhere:

It does not matter what persons ultimately believe God to be anywhere below the absolutely infinite standard of perfection. That is the highest conceivable standard. To assume anything less is to beg the question. Define something lower, I'll define something higher and so on . . . unto infinity.​

Simple.

Youre missing a step.

Proving god existing in the first place.

Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.

Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.

that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.

 

[Hollie]

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?

I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this. Atheist = God doesn't exist. There's no room for quibbling about that. That's what the term means. a = no; theist = God. No God or God doesn't exist. So precisely what is the atheist saying does objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind? What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on? The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.

Answer: The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.

Answer: His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence: the universe.

Simple.

It follows that even the atheist knows that "we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe." The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic. The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.

Simple.

So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.

You're a fucking idiot.

You're being too hard on the boy.

You’re just not understanding the M. Pompous Rawling theory of pointless argumentation.

As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:

1. There is evidence for the gods.

How do we know this?

2. Because the universe exists.

And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?

3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.

And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?

4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.

Therefore:....

Simple.


A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.

How convenient.

 

[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 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?

Yes that's why we can neither prove nor disprove God.
Because all our knowledge or evidence is gotten from other sources
and our interpretations/perceptions are "inferred" from those.

Justin what do you think about proving Spiritual Healing
in order to arrive at a consensus on God Jesus and what is taught in religion based on forgiveness?

Wouldn't that achieve the same goal of getting everyone on the same page?

 

[G.T.]

The tag is a viciously circular argument indeed.

One has to have two fatal flaws in order to buy into it: mental disability, or damaging bias.

 

[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?

I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this. Atheist = God doesn't exist. There's no room for quibbling about that. That's what the term means. a = no; theist = God. No God or God doesn't exist. So precisely what is the atheist saying does objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind? What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on? The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.

Answer: The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.

Answer: His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence: the universe.

Simple.

It follows that even the atheist knows that "we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe." The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic. The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.

Simple.

So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.

You're a fucking idiot.

You're being too hard on the boy.

You’re just not understanding the M. Pompous Rawling theory of pointless argumentation.

As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:

1. There is evidence for the gods.

How do we know this?

2. Because the universe exists.

And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?

3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.

And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?

4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.

Therefore:....

Simple.


A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.

How convenient.

I dunno. I'm sticking with the "fucking idiot" theory.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this. Atheist = God doesn't exist. There's no room for quibbling about that. That's what the term means. a = no; theist = God. No God or God doesn't exist. So precisely what is the atheist saying does objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind? What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on? The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.

Answer: The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.

Answer: His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence: the universe.

Simple.

It follows that even the atheist knows that "we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe." The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic. The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.

Simple.

So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.

You're a fucking idiot.

You're being too hard on the boy.

You’re just not understanding the M. Pompous Rawling theory of pointless argumentation.

As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:
RE A.
1. There is evidence for the gods.

How do we know this?

2. Because the universe exists.

And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?


3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.

And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?

4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.

Therefore:....

Simple.


A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.

How convenient.

NO that is not what he is saying
he is saying it can't be ruled out
God can neither be proven or disproven

He is trying to get to NEUTRAL

Can we get to NEUTRAL
that for God to represent the infinite and eternal which is beyond the scope of man
means God cannot be either proven or disproven

Can we please agree on that
and get to NEUTRAL

 

[G.T.]

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?

I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this. Atheist = God doesn't exist. There's no room for quibbling about that. That's what the term means. a = no; theist = God. No God or God doesn't exist. So precisely what is the atheist saying does objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind? What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on? The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.

Answer: The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.

Answer: His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence: the universe.

Simple.

It follows that even the atheist knows that "we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe." The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic. The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.

Simple.

So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.

You're a fucking idiot.

You're being too hard on the boy.

You’re just not understanding the M. Pompous Rawling theory of pointless argumentation.

As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:

1. There is evidence for the gods.

How do we know this?

2. Because the universe exists.

And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?

3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.

And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?

4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.

Therefore:....

Simple.


A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.

How convenient.

I dunno. I'm sticking with the "fucking idiot" theory.

Dog chasing its tail is most accurate, IMO.

 

[emilynghiem]

The tag is a viciously circular argument indeed.

One has to have two fatal flaws in order to buy into it: mental disability, or damaging bias.

Hi GT if Hollie chickens out on the bet
would you like to join in?

10 million dollars says that Spiritual Healing
can be proven to form a consensus on God Jesus and the Bible,
by showing a correlation between
* forgiveness and ability to reconcile religious and political conflicts independent of the groups and viewpoints
* unforgiveness and inability to reconcile among these groups

so the problem is not with people's beliefs as theists or nontheists, left or right.
The problem is whether we forgive each other or not,
that determines if we can reach agreement and understanding as needed for consensus.
Our language and beliefs we hold naturally will not change
but our perception and ways of interacting will change
by receiving forgiveness to bring healing to people in mind body spirit and relations.

Do you want to make the bet?
My other friends chickened out
but one Atheist friend on another site
WANTS to see this spiritual healing proven
and documented by science. Are you in?

is this "ramification" applicable enough to matter to you?

 

[Boss]

I dont think we have the same idea of smarts.

You're taking animals that specialize in a very specific trade or ability.

Also - we do have an explanation for "how we developed this." It's called evolution. You can argue against it until you're blue in the face - but we're worlds apart and that's boring.

I'm not going to continue this, I'll cut it off here. You're streeeeeeeeetching, to make a point that isn't there.

All I did was give you examples of what you were explaining away as humans little sumn-sumn that made them unique. It's not complicated, humans have humanity which is inspired through our spiritual awareness. That's this special quality that makes humans different.

You can't run and hide behind evolution because it supports what I am saying as well. If what we developed that makes us special in naturally acquired, there would be evidence elsewhere in nature, our common ancestors at least. But we don't see the gorillas offering their bananas to hungry children after earthquakes, do we? In spite of all the advanced training we provided through NASA, we don't see the chimps putting a man on the moon. Our humanistic aspects are not found anywhere else in nature. Human morality and ethics are not present in the natural world, other than in humans who are spiritually aware.

No, where we differ is spirituality being the only thing that seperates us.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with something I find so epically stupid, it's inarguable.


Humans are more intelligent than any other species on the planet. niche abilities of certain animals do not override that.

Put any animal versus a human being in a warehouse with tools and materials and tell one to survive. My $ is on the human every single time. Not because of spirituality, and same for our morals.

Spirituality did not create our morals. Spirituality once DEEMED it moral, to make HUMAN SACRIFICES to the gods. What changed? Our ability to reason increased.

Reason, brought upon us by evolution, is what separates us and where we got our morals. Not religion, not spirituality.

Well, no one likes to argue against points so irrefutable, it's not much fun. It's a whole lot easier to ridicule the point and claim it is absurd without addressing it.

Humans are more intelligent than any other species on the planet. niche abilities of certain animals do not override that.

I didn't claim anything overrode anything else. You are using human intelligence to explain human intelligence. This is simple circular reasoning... humans are the most intelligent because humans are more intelligent. What you are missing is, human intelligence largely stems from inspiration and inspiration is spiritually based.

Now, you jump from intelligence to reason, and again make the same circular argument, we have reason because we are able to reason....ahem, it's through da evolutionz! But yet.... the miraculous and remarkable difference in human reasoning versus the reasoning found elsewhere in nature, is unexplained by evolution.

Natural reasoning says, if I am stronger than you, it is to my advantage to take what is yours for myself. Survival of the fittest, circle of life, law of the jungle... whatever you want to call it, this is what nature reasons. We see this evidenced everywhere except in human nature. With humans, there is the component known as human morality. This can't be an evolved trait because it does not exist elsewhere in nature. It is a trait which stems from our spiritual understanding that we aren't the supreme power, there is something greater and more important than self.

 

[G.T.]

The tag is a viciously circular argument indeed.

One has to have two fatal flaws in order to buy into it: mental disability, or damaging bias.

Hi GT if Hollie chickens out on the bet
would you like to join in?

10 million dollars says that Spiritual Healing
can be proven to form a consensus on God Jesus and the Bible,
by showing a correlation between
* forgiveness and ability to reconcile religious and political conflicts independent of the groups and viewpoints
* unforgiveness and inability to reconcile among these groups

so the problem is not with people's beliefs as theists or nontheists, left or right.
The problem is whether we forgive each other or not,
that determines if we can reach agreement and understanding as needed for consensus.
Our language and beliefs we hold naturally will not change
but our perception and ways of interacting will change
by receiving forgiveness to bring healing to peoplin mind body spirit and relations.

Do you want to make the bet?
My other friends chickened out
but one Atheist friend on another site
WANTS to see this spiritual healing proven
and documented by science. Are you in?

is this "ramification" applicable enough to matter to you?

Concensus is not proof of anything. Your bet is frivolous.

 

[G.T.]

I dont think we have the same idea of smarts.

You're taking animals that specialize in a very specific trade or ability.

Also - we do have an explanation for "how we developed this." It's called evolution. You can argue against it until you're blue in the face - but we're worlds apart and that's boring.

I'm not going to continue this, I'll cut it off here. You're streeeeeeeeetching, to make a point that isn't there.

All I did was give you examples of what you were explaining away as humans little sumn-sumn that made them unique. It's not complicated, humans have humanity which is inspired through our spiritual awareness. That's this special quality that makes humans different.

You can't run and hide behind evolution because it supports what I am saying as well. If what we developed that makes us special in naturally acquired, there would be evidence elsewhere in nature, our common ancestors at least. But we don't see the gorillas offering their bananas to hungry children after earthquakes, do we? In spite of all the advanced training we provided through NASA, we don't see the chimps putting a man on the moon. Our humanistic aspects are not found anywhere else in nature. Human morality and ethics are not present in the natural world, other than in humans who are spiritually aware.

No, where we differ is spirituality being the only thing that seperates us.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with something I find so epically stupid, it's inarguable.


Humans are more intelligent than any other species on the planet. niche abilities of certain animals do not override that.

Put any animal versus a human being in a warehouse with tools and materials and tell one to survive. My $ is on the human every single time. Not because of spirituality, and same for our morals.

Spirituality did not create our morals. Spirituality once DEEMED it moral, to make HUMAN SACRIFICES to the gods. What changed? Our ability to reason increased.

Reason, brought upon us by evolution, is what separates us and where we got our morals. Not religion, not spirituality.

Well, no one likes to argue against points so irrefutable, it's not much fun. It's a whole lot easier to ridicule the point and claim it is absurd without addressing it.

Humans are more intelligent than any other species on the planet. niche abilities of certain animals do not override that.

I didn't claim anything overrode anything else. You are using human intelligence to explain human intelligence. This is simple circular reasoning... humans are the most intelligent because humans are more intelligent. What you are missing is, human intelligence largely stems from inspiration and inspiration is spiritually based.

Now, you jump from intelligence to reason, and again make the same circular argument, we have reason because we are able to reason....ahem, it's through da evolutionz! But yet.... the miraculous and remarkable difference in human reasoning versus the reasoning found elsewhere in nature, is unexplained by evolution.

Natural reasoning says, if I am stronger than you, it is to my advantage to take what is yours for myself. Survival of the fittest, circle of life, law of the jungle... whatever you want to call it, this is what nature reasons. We see this evidenced everywhere except in human nature. With humans, there is the component known as human morality. This can't be an evolved trait because it does not exist elsewhere in nature. It is a trait which stems from our spiritual understanding that we aren't the supreme power, there is something greater and more important than self.

No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.

You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.

 

[Boss]

Hmmm. I suppose the answer must be that humans are less intelligent than every other species.

You will never see another species pray to a block of wood for help during a crisis.

How stupid is that?

yeah, it doesn't even make sense that this isn't fundamentally important, does it?

It makes perfect sense. Its a simple matter of monkey see monkey do, except, historically, it has been under penalty of death for failure to comply with whatever irrational religious belief or practice was being done at the time. The instinct to survive IS fundamentally important.

I heard it is still happening in certain places where if you do not profess a belief in a so called god named alla whose prophet was a psychotic homicidal pedophile when even the least moral human being wouldn't choose such a perverse person for anything, much less God, you will be summarily executed..

Is the "spirituality" of people living under such conditions really that deep and mysterious to you?

Perhaps every civilization ever founded on false beliefs crumbled because believing in what does not exist creates confusion that can only increase exponentially by praying to what does not exist for guidance and help.

Hey... bash away at religion and religious beliefs all you like. I'm not here to defend those. Men who are hungry for power have often attempted to control people through religion. It always fails, which is why you are aware of it. What I believe spiritually is beyond your ability to control or force.

Now what doesn't make any rational sense, is that humans have imagined something unreal for all their existence and that thing has been the source of human inspiration and achievement, yet it is imagined and not fundamental. Your opinion doesn't render it any more rational.