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

[Justin Davis]

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?

God's existence is proven under the terms of organic logic. That has already been proven and the problem is that you don't know what logical proofs are. You don't know what you're talking about as far as that goes. God's existence simply cannot be proven in the ultimate sense in constructive logic which is the logic of science. That's all you are saying. Science can't verify or falsify the existence of spiritual hings, though I agree with you that science can be used to methodologically gather evidence in a disciplined way from which you can rationally infer the existence of spiritual things from repeated experience, like you said about how good things consistently happen when we apply the spiritual ideas of healing and such as compared to what happens when we don't. But still that evidence cannot be said to be spiritual in substance, but empirical, observed results. Does that makes sense?

 

[Boss]

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.

Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.

All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?

We are not reading the same theory of evolution.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

There he goes again pretending we're talking about proving things ultimately rather than the basic facts of origin. You said the five things are beyond debate. You're such an intellectual coward. The five are obvious. You take what is so simple and twist it into something so stupid and silly. You're just a liar and a coward.

 

[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.

There he goes again pretending we're talking about proving things ultimately rather than the basic facts of origin. You said the five things are beyond debate. You're such an intellectual coward. The five are obvious. You take what is so simple and twist it into something so stupid and silly. You're just a liar and a coward.

See my.post on your 'five things' and try to respond to it pussy.

I'm not the coward - you're the distasteful little bitch who doesn't understand shit.

The 'five things' and WhAT YOU EXTRAPOLATE FROM THEM are two totally different animals. You'd have to be a six year old not to understand that.

Stop.being such a troll. And if not trolling, such a retard.

 

[G.T.]

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 that 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.

​

​

Finally found this stupid assed list of five, so I'll go through them one by one.

1. We exist, is not evidence of a sentient, or "on purpose" creator, or evidence that all of the other existence theories could not be so. Poor proof for god.

2. The cosmos exist, is not evidence of a sentient, or "on purpose" creator, or evidence that all of the other existence theories could not be so. Poor proof for god.

3. Atheism is not rational, CURRENTLY. Same with theism. I've said BOTH. Neither are rational, until there's considerable proof of one or the other - of which I have yet to see any.

4. An all knowing knower would necessarily know that they're all knowing is simply an axiom, and it's an axiom BECAUSE OF ITS DEFINITION, and THAT'S IT! This does not speak to whether or not AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER EVEN EXISTS. And the point was, A non all knowing knower NECESSARILY knows THAT THEY DON'T know everything, as well - - - - - meaning that the tag question "what do you know, and how do you know it?" is answered, you can ground all of your knowledge from THAT starting point: "I know I'm not all knowing." This is an axiom because of its definitions. This does not speak to whether or not a god exists, and does not prove that it's required, the baseless tag premise, that objective knowledge has its basis in a "mind" holding it together, necessarily. "It just is" is still just as plausible, in current human knowledge, and so the TAG cannot be used as PROOF of anything because EXISTS ARE OTHER EXPLANATIONS. You're taking LIBERTIES by ascribing it as you have in the TAG when OTHER (non disproven!!!!!!!!) EXPLANATIONS DO EXIST. Taking said liberties is dishonest, or misguided, or shortsighted, or LYING, or a combination of all of them.

5. I dont even know what the fuck this means, its bad english.










So, the more you bring up "but but but but but you agreed with the FIVE THINGS!!!! THE FIVE THINGS!!!!!!!!!" the more you waste my time and fail. They don't advance the proof for god, they dont advance the rationale for god. They're a meaningless numbered list that don't lead one one way or another if they're being absolutely (hee hee) objective.

this is for the very 'speeeshul' Mr. Davis

 

[Boss]

Boss, I understand the dynamics of the psychology you're talking about. It's not rocket science. It has a name. It's called epistemological subjectivism/relativism, essentially, irrationalism. What you're really saying in the rest of the post outside the portion I quoted in the above to save space, is that human consciousness has primacy over the actual nature of any given thing all the way up to the cosmological order itself. Worse, according to your logic, human consciousness has primacy over ultimate existence itself, namely, over divine consciousness.

Consiousness only has primacy over awareness. I've made no other argument.

You don't really believe that. You just fail to connect the dots out of sheer contrariness, more at, out of sheer pride, the refusal to concede the silliness of your unexamined ideas, though you be so close to the truth.

I don't connect dots because connecting dots is drawing conclusions and that is important to avoid while making objective evaluations. My ideas are not silly and are being examined as we speak. You do not have the only set of keys to the truth. You're smart, you make some very compelling arguments and I enjoy reading most of your posts. I have not attacked you or your opinion, but I keep being attacked brutally by you for some odd reason.

I am not arguing number 1, not now, not ever, because I am not an irrationalist.

Well you can't argue number 1 because that is my opinion of your argument. Opinions are not arguments, so you can't argue against or for them, you can only agree or disagree.

I do not hold, for obvious reasons, that human consciousness has primacy over existence as if a toad, for example, would suddenly turn into a bird because I decided in my head that the toad were a bird. Your failure to understand what I'm arguing, just as you somehow got it into your head that I was arguing spirituality to be something contrary or mysterious, is a symptom of your refusal to be objectively unbiased about anything. You can't even keep track of your own arguments, as number 1 is what you're arguing, not I.

Well I go by what you post... you said "this mysterious spiritual nature" and that seems to indicate you believe spiritual nature to be mysterious. Forgive me if I've misunderstood. Also, I don't believe toads turn into birds because our mind imagines that. Or... that monkeys turn into humans, for that matter. I believe that humans evaluate and value evidence differently, and this may cause some humans to think monkeys turned into humans while others reject that notion.

Hence, in number 2 and number 4, you essentially argue that evidence is whatever one believes it to be. There is truth in that, but, of course, that’s not the point and never has been, and only an irrationalist would habitually fail to get the point or grasp the ultimately pertinent fact of reality about any given thing. The irrationalist is the most gullible of persons in the world, a danger to himself and everyone else.

You keep saying I am irrational, but you've not demonstrated a thing I've said that was irrational. Here, I make a point (or two) that you agree with, but you still want to call me names and denigrate me for some odd reason. Here's the most pertinent fact of reality... there is no universal reality. We all experience an individual perception of reality. You seem to think there is only one reality and it is yours, and those who don't agree with your view of it are wrong.

Of course the veracity of evidence can be and is questioned all the time. How did you come to attribute the stupidity of the contrary to me? The issue is not what any given person accepts to be evidence, but whether or not any given person's alleged evidence for something actually proves the object!

The object! The object! The object!

The object may be subject to rational evaluation itself... are we talking about a physical or spiritual object? If you don't believe in spiritual objects, no amount of anything is going to be seen as evidence, valid or otherwise. Evidence is what we perceive to be evidence. Once it is accepted as evidence, it can be evaluated objectively for veracity. Proof is what you personally believe the evidence supports and suggests as truth. If you don't acknowledge the evidence you can't find proof.

Also, evidence is never proof. It may be used in the support of your belief something is proven, but most everything in our universe is unproven.

And once again, you incessantly confuse yourself with your irrationalism: if one claims something to be evidence, they obviously accept it to be evidence. You’re not making a distinction in number 4. They're the same thing. From there we weigh the veracity of said evidence relative to the object.

Again, you are talking about subjective evaluations and objective evaluation after you have accepted something as evidence for something else in a rational manner. Evidence is not evidence just because someone claims it is evidence. It is evidence to them, it may not be evidence to anyone else. You can't weigh the veracity of something that doesn't yet exist. The object is what you are trying to prove with evidence, but evidence and proof are subjective.

Finally, Boss, the atheist does accept the universe to be evidence for God's existence. Your allegation to the contrary has been incontrovertibly falsified by the only justifiable and universally objective standard, namely, the principle of identity. The judge, i.e., the unassailable principle of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, has ruled your lunacy inadmissible evidence. In this case, the one before the court, your evidence has no relevancy, as it does not and cannot prove your object.

Once again, the court's finds that the atheistdoes accept the universe to be evidence for God's existence, regardless of what any given nitwit says, whether that nitwit be an atheist or not. It is also the court's finding that the latter suffer from or form of cognitive psychosis or cognitive sociopathy. They are pathologically deluded, or they are pathological liars. Intellectually honest atheists concede this axiomatic, tautological fact of human cognition regarding this imperative of the problem of origin, for their concession inhabits the term atheist. They know and believe that!

All I can say is, ask any Atheist what they believe? Most of the ones I speak to have not said they accept the universe to be evidence for God's existence. Now you can talk about the principle of identity and various forms of logic and reasoning, I enjoy hearing your opinions. But you're not the judge and this isn't a court and I'm not on trial. I growing very impatient with your constant insulting and denigration.

What they do not believe is that the evidence for the existence of God, namely, the existence of the universe, proves the fact of the object or the fact of the substance of the idea of God that’s in their heads due to the evidence for God’s existence, namely, the existence of the universe.

Boss! Are you always so gullible or deluded, always so easily deceived, or are you a sociopath? In any event, you are duly ordered to pay a troll penalty of mea culpa and to cease and desist with this lunacy. The court also recommends no less than 90 days of rehab in a substance abuse program of your choice.

What they do not believe is that any evidence exists for God. You are trying to argue the universe is obvious and incontrovertible evidence, and I agree with you, I'm on your side there. But it is evidence the Atheist is not interested in accepting as evidence. Your argument can be totally valid up one side and down the other, it doesn't matter to the Atheist, they don't accept your evidence as evidence.

Now, if you want to insist on calling me a troll, or busting my chops over semantics details, or trying to go out of your way to find fault in something I've said on the subject... be my fucking guest. I don't have a popularity complex like some. I get called all kinds of names and insulted in all kinds of ways as I deliver my profound wisdom to these boards. It comes with the territory of being legendary.

 

[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.

You're a fucking idiot.

What is wrong with you? When have I ever spoken to you like that? Did you or did you not just agree with me that "we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe"? Which, of course, entails the idea that we cannot rule out the possibility that God exists.

If you agree with me on that, then why are your calling me idiot? Have you lost your mind?

If we can't logically rule out the possibility that God exists, it follows that the atheist can't logically do that either. So what is going in his mind about the idea of God, dblack?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Justin can speak for himself, but he rightly understands the matter. You and Hollie don't rightly understand things at all. You just blew Justin off without understanding what he's telling you. Everything that is in bold has absolutely nothing to do with what Justin is talking about. I know that because he and I discussed the matter of the philosophy of science (generic) earlier on this thread, long before you came along and assumed to know what he's thinking based on Hollie's bullshit.

Back off! You're out of line.

Hollie is a known quantity. An irrational, pathological liar, who does nothing but attack people and incessantly attribute ideas to them that they have never stated or thought on this thread! Ever! You did not get these notions about Justin from Justin, DID YOU? You got them from Hollie, DIDN'T YOU?

And science is premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, with epistemological-ontological constructs of justification serving as its infrastructure. The philosophy of science precedes science! It has primacy over science. It cannot be any other way. Hollie is a rank idiot and a historical illiterate. There is nothing about the Enlightenment that relegated philosophy to the back of the bus relative to science, and only backward, nose-picking hayseeds and post-modern atheistic materialists talk that stupid bullshit. Science is the methodological investigation of empirical phenomena, a system of precise rules of inference, experimentation and falsification. Methodology doesn't precede and cannot precede the first principles of ontological and epistemological justification.

Moreover, while there is a general consensus regarding the fundamental categories of scientific methodology, there is no single, universally comprehensive consensus in the scientific community in terms of the regulatory concerns of epistemology and ontology; and the leading metaphysical presuppositions/apriorities for science range from metaphysical naturalism to methodological naturalism to theistic naturalism and to religious naturalism.

As for our respective apriorities for science, though it's doubtful that either one of you know what category your stuff actually falls under: Hollie is a metaphysical naturalist; Jason and I are methodological naturalists and you and Boss are talking like religious naturalists.

 

[Justin Davis]

See my.post on your 'five things' and try to respond to it pussy.

I'm not the coward - you're the distasteful little bitch who doesn't understand shit.

The 'five things' and WhAT YOU EXTRAPOLATE FROM THEM are two totally different animals. You'd have to be a six year old not to understand that.

Stop.being such a troll. And if not trolling, such a retard.

You don't know what can or can't be extrapolated from them so stop pretending like you know. Because you constantly self-delude you can barely get the obviously true five things that any six-year old can easily understand. And no one is even talking about extrapolations past the five things with you. You can't even stick to one story from post to post.

G.T.: "the five things are beyond debate."

So why did you write that and start debating them and talk about proving things scientifically again when that's the whole point of number 5? Right? Right? Right? Is that like the millionth or the zillionth time you bored us with that now, as if that were something earthshatteringly new. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Hollie]

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.

Justin can speak for himself, but he rightly understands the matter. You and Hollie don't rightly understand things at all. You just blew Justin off without understanding what he's telling you. Everything that is in bold has absolutely nothing to do with what Justin is talking about. I know that because he and I discussed the matter of the philosophy of science (generic) earlier on this thread, long before you came along and assumed to know what he's thinking based on Hollie's bullshit.

Back off! You're out of line.

Hollie is a known quantity. An irrational, pathological liar, who does nothing but attack people and incessantly attribute ideas to them that they have never stated or thought on this thread! Ever! You did not get these notions about Justin from Justin, DID YOU? You got them from Hollie, DIDN'T YOU?

And science is premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, with epistemological-ontological constructs of justification serving as its infrastructure. The philosophy of science precedes science! It has primacy over science. It cannot be any other way. Hollie is a rank idiot and a historical illiterate. There is nothing about the Enlightenment that relegated philosophy to the back of the bus relative to science, and only backward, nose-picking hayseeds and post-modern atheistic materialists talk that stupid bullshit. Science is the methodological investigation of empirical phenomena, a system of precise rules of inference, experimentation and falsification. Methodology doesn't precede and cannot precede the first principles of ontological and epistemological justification.

Moreover, while there is a general consensus regarding the fundamental categories of scientific methodology, there is no single, universally comprehensive consensus in the scientific community in terms of the regulatory concerns of epistemology and ontology; and the leading metaphysical presuppositions/apriorities for science range from metaphysical naturalism to methodological naturalism to theistic naturalism and to religious naturalism.

As for our respective apriorities for science, though it's doubtful that either one of you know what category your stuff actually falls under: Hollie is a metaphysical naturalist; Jason and I are methodological naturalists and you and Boss are talking like religious naturalists.

Oh my. The raving supernaturalist had his feelings hurt. I suppose that happens when pompous religious zealots are taken to task for their pointless, circular arguments.

M. Pompous Rawling is a religious fundamentalist.

 

[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.

What is wrong with you? When have I ever spoken to you like that? Did you or did you not just agree with me that "we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe"? Which, of course, entails the idea that we cannot rule out the possibility that God exists.

If you agree with me on that, then why are your calling me idiot? Have you lost your mind?

If we can't logically rule out the possibility that God exists, it follows that the atheist can't logically do that either. So what is going in his mind about the idea of God, dblack?

No. I've lost patience with discussions that turn out to be struggles for control over popular definitions rather than exploring ideas. I gave you the opportunity dispense with that nonsense and focus on the issue (your proof of god), but you've chosen propaganda over debate by promoting the idea that having no belief a god is equivalent with a belief that gods do not exist. A person who says "I know of no god. All of those I've heard about seem like hogwash to me, but it's possible such a thing exists" is as much an atheist as the person who claims to have proof that there are no gods. I'm fed up with the campaign to narrow the term to the latter.

If the intent of point 3 was merely to establish that we can't rule out the logical possibility that a god created the universe, then let's move on. We've done that. But it sounds like there's more to it than that, or you'd simply jettison the 'atheist' cargo.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

What in the world? dblack what's going on with you all of the sudden? Have you gone Hollie on us? You asked him to resolve something, though why you saw any contradiction in the first place over an easy thing is weird. It's not hard. When an atheist says he doesn't believe in God what is he saying doesn't exist? Where does he get the idea of God from? Doesn't a person have to know what it is they're saying doesn't exist and why they're saying it doesn't before they say it doesn't exist? Do normal people go around saying things don't exist without knowing what the thing is or where the idea came from?

Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out? There must be a reason you believe that's logically true. Answer those questions and that one especially and you'll understand what he's telling you. Man alive. I come back and you're calling Rawlings whose been nice to you an idiot out of the blue over something my ten-year-old understands and emilynghiem is talking crazy stuff about the philosophy science.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

What is wrong with you? When have I ever spoken to you like that? Did you or did you not just agree with me that "we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe"? Which, of course, entails the idea that we cannot rule out the possibility that God exists.

If you agree with me on that, then why are your calling me idiot? Have you lost your mind?

If we can't logically rule out the possibility that God exists, it follows that the atheist can't logically do that either. So what is going in his mind about the idea of God, dblack?

No. I've lost patience with discussions that turn out to be struggles for control over popular definitions rather than exploring ideas. I gave you the opportunity dispense with that nonsense and focus on the issue (your proof of god), but you've chosen propaganda over debate by promoting the idea that having no belief a god is equivalent with a belief that gods do not exist. A person who says "I know of no god. All of those I've heard about seem like hogwash to me, but it's possible such a thing exists" is as much an atheist as the person who claims to have proof that there are no gods. I'm fed up with the campaign to narrow the term to the latter.

If the intent of point 3 was merely to establish that we can't rule out the logical possibility that a god created the universe, then let's move on. We've done that. But it sounds like there's more to it than that, or you'd simply jettison the 'atheist' cargo.

dblack you asked him to explain something. He's trying to explain it to you. It's not hard. What proving are you talking about. Number 5 says God can't be proven in the ultimate sense. Man alive. We exist. The universe exists. God exists by rules of organic logic. God means supreme being. But God can't be verified by science. That's all he's saying. These things are all true. As for the atheist thing, obviously the atheist recognizes that the idea of God comes from the evidence of the universe's existence. What made the universe exist? Well, God could have. The atheist obviously gets that, but says he doesn't believe that the universe was caused by God anyway but by something else or maybe it's always existed. Come on. Really? Rawlings is an idiot? There's not trick to this.

 

[Hollie]

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?

God's existence is proven under the terms of organic logic. That has already been proven and the problem is that you don't know what logical proofs are. You don't know what you're talking about as far as that goes. God's existence simply cannot be proven in the ultimate sense in constructive logic which is the logic of science. That's all you are saying. Science can't verify or falsify the existence of spiritual hings, though I agree with you that science can be used to methodologically gather evidence in a disciplined way from which you can rationally infer the existence of spiritual things from repeated experience, like you said about how good things consistently happen when we apply the spiritual ideas of healing and such as compared to what happens when we don't. But still that evidence cannot be said to be spiritual in substance, but empirical, observed results. Does that makes sense?

"God's existence is proven under the terms of organic logic"

False. Organic logic or "inorganic" logic is not a tool that can prove your partisan gawds or other gawds. You use terms you don't understand to promote a fraud.

I suspect your fraud is calculated so you cannot claim ignorance of your fraud as an excuse.

 

[dblack]

dblack you asked him to explain something. He's trying to explain it to you. It's not hard. What proving are you talking about. Number 5 says God can't be proven in the ultimate sense. Man alive. We exist. The universe exists. God exists by rules of organic logic. God means supreme being. But God can't be verified by science. That's all he's saying. These things are all true. As for the atheist thing, obviously the atheist recognizes that the idea of God comes from the evidence of the universe's existence. What made the universe exist? Well, God could have. The atheist obviously gets that, but says he doesn't believe that the universe was caused by God anyway but by something else or maybe it's always existed. Come on. Really? Rawlings is an idiot? There's not trick to this.

If there's no trick to it, then why all the trickery? Seriously, I don't claim to be a genius, so it's possible I'm just not bright enough to follow, but this argument is a meandering mess in my view. This is the kind of stuff that causes people like QW to reject philosophy altogether.

It sounds like the point of it all is simply to confirm the agnostic's position that the existence of god's can't be proven. But whether a not a god's existence can be proven depends entirely on the supposed nature of the god in question.

 

[G.T.]

See my.post on your 'five things' and try to respond to it pussy.

I'm not the coward - you're the distasteful little bitch who doesn't understand shit.

The 'five things' and WhAT YOU EXTRAPOLATE FROM THEM are two totally different animals. You'd have to be a six year old not to understand that.

Stop.being such a troll. And if not trolling, such a retard.

You don't know what can or can't be extrapolated from them so stop pretending like you know. Because you constantly self-delude you can barely get the obviously true five things that any six-year old can easily understand. And no one is even talking about extrapolations past the five things with you. You can't even stick to one story from post to post.

G.T.: "the five things are beyond debate."

So why did you write that and start debating them and talk about proving things scientifically again when that's the whole point of number 5? Right? Right? Right? Is that like the millionth or the zillionth time you bored us with that now, as if that were something earthshatteringly new. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Cuz you're the fuckin idiot who brings them up every time I say that the TAG argument is bullshit, which it very clearly IS.

 

[Justin Davis]

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

That's right. Hollie doesn't understand what he's saying. She never has. Just like you didn't know what i was talking about regarding philosophy of science when you unloaded her crap on me. Where did you get that crap from? I never wrote any crap like that. So your pretending to know what I'm talking about based on what that liar Hollie says? You had no business making those assumptions based on what some lunatic said.

But you are still wrong about one thing. Under the rules of organic/classical logic "God exists" is an axiomatically proven proposition. One cannot credibly claim to have absolute knowledge about anything (assert anything to be absolutely true as you are by the way) without presupposing there is an absolute basis for that certainty. Obviously, the basis for such certainty would have to be an absolutely immutable ground of existence: spiritual. God's existence is proved by the necessity of logic. God's existence just can't be verified by science. Saying that is not the same thing as saying that God's existence cannot be proven. Science simply cannot address the question. That's it.

 

[dblack]

What in the world? dblack what's going on with you all of the sudden? Have you gone Hollie on us? You asked him to resolve something, though why you saw any contradiction in the first place over an easy thing is weird. It's not hard. When an atheist says he doesn't believe in God what is he saying doesn't exist? Where does he get the idea of God from? Doesn't a person have to know what it is they're saying doesn't exist and why they're saying it doesn't before they say it doesn't exist? Do normal people go around saying things don't exist without knowing what the thing is or where the idea came from?

Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out? There must be a reason you believe that's logically true. Answer those questions and that one especially and you'll understand what he's telling you. Man alive. I come back and you're calling Rawlings whose been nice to you an idiot out of the blue over something my ten-year-old understands and emilynghiem is talking crazy stuff about the philosophy science.

As I said, I'm fed up with this campaign to force a false dichotomy on the subject of religious belief. It's a strawman to claim that rejecting theism is a claim of knowledge that no gods exist. It's subtle form of intimidation, to dissuade doubters with the suggestion that disbelief is irrational.

When an atheist says he doesn't believe in God what is he saying doesn't exist? Where does he get the idea of God from?

He get's it from you - or whoever is making the claims about their God. He's saying "I don't believe your claims."

Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out? There must be a reason you believe that's logically true. Answer those questions and that one especially and you'll understand what he's telling you. Man alive. I come back and you're calling Rawlings whose been nice to you an idiot out of the blue over something my ten-year-old understands and emilynghiem is talking crazy stuff about the philosophy science.

Ok. I answered those questions: Atheists don't believe the claims of believers. But it's possible believers are right.

Really? That's all Rawlings is trying to say? Huh. My version is shorter. Feel free to cut and paste.

 

[Hollie]

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): 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

That's right. Hollie doesn't understand what he's saying. She never has. Just like you didn't know what i was talking about regarding philosophy of science when you unloaded her crap on me. Where did you get that crap from? I never wrote any crap like that. So your pretending to know what I'm talking about based on what that liar Hollie says? You had no business making those assumptions based on what some lunatic said.

But you are still wrong about one thing. Under the rules of organic/classical logic "God exists" is an axiomatically proven proposition. One cannot credibly claim to have absolute knowledge about anything (assert anything to be absolutely true as you are by the way) without presupposing there is an absolute basis for that certainty. Obviously, the basis for such certainty would have to be an absolutely immutable ground of existence: spiritual. God's existence is proved by the necessity of logic. God's existence just can't be verified by science. Saying that is not the same thing as saying that God's existence cannot be proven. Science simply cannot address the question. That's it.

That's not it. You continue to promote a fraud. Logic will never prove supernatural agents you call gods.

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): 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

That's right. Hollie doesn't understand what he's saying. She never has. Just like you didn't know what i was talking about regarding philosophy of science when you unloaded her crap on me. Where did you get that crap from? I never wrote any crap like that. So your pretending to know what I'm talking about based on what that liar Hollie says? You had no business making those assumptions based on what some lunatic said.

But you are still wrong about one thing. Under the rules of organic/classical logic "God exists" is an axiomatically proven proposition. One cannot credibly claim to have absolute knowledge about anything (assert anything to be absolutely true as you are by the way) without presupposing there is an absolute basis for that certainty. Obviously, the basis for such certainty would have to be an absolutely immutable ground of existence: spiritual. God's existence is proved by the necessity of logic. God's existence just can't be verified by science. Saying that is not the same thing as saying that God's existence cannot be proven. Science simply cannot address the question. That's it.

That's not right. You continue to promote a fraud. That's not a simple miscalculation on your part. That's a calculated effort to deceive. Logic will never prove alleged supernatural agents you call "gods".

It is pretty self-explanatory. A god by definition has the attribute of being incomprehensible. If something incomprehensible is responsible for all of existence, then ultimately, the universe is made incomprehensible at its source. I disagree that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible. In time, I believe that these mysteries will be plumbed.

If a reasonable assessment that gods, leprechauns and jinn do not exist troubles you so, why not offer something (other than “because I say so”), to prove they do? Reason operates on trust of what is; when “what is” changes, then so does the acceptance of what “what is” was. Empirically we see this occur over and over, under the discipline we call “science”. Reason’s innate fluidity does not invalidate it; to the contrary, that fluidity makes reason the only possible choice because models of reality can only be compared when one is not hopelessly mired in fundamentalist religious dogma. One cannot assert an alternative to reason without first ingesting the available data and using reason itself to come up with the new assertion. Hence, the assertion itself that reason is somehow flawed cannot be viable. To follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion, one must assert solipsism, in which case the very act of this discussion is rendered absurd.