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

[Justin Davis]

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.

What trickery? There's no trickery? Are these things true? Yes or no? The answer is yes! What are you talking about? What is philosophy? It's the science of thought used to accurately define the nature of things and establish a base for true justified knowledge, including a reliable foundation for science. We use philosophy to systematically pull out the things that are axiomatically true, objectively true without bias. If these things are objectively true, and they are, then they are true without bias. There's no trickery. You know these things are true. Whose tricking you? Are you tricking yourself? Did he trick you into knowing these things are true? You're not making sense are you? Science can't verify God's existence because science can only deal with physical things. Another truth. Is that a trick?

And why are you jumping to conclusions about agnosticism, making assumptions? Is that philosophy? No. That’s not philosophy. Bad philosophy jumps to conclusions and makes assumptions without justification. Rawlings isn't the one jumping to conclusions or making assumptions. You are, and you don't understand what he's telling you about atheism. Your inability to understand something that my child understands does make what he‘s telling you wrong. The problem is not with what he's telling you. The problem is with you. Apparently you're not smart enough. So that pisses you off and you call him idiot? Apparently you have something personal against him, because nothing youre saying makes sense at all. You're insulting him for something he gave you credit to be able to understand.

You are smart enough to understand what he's telling about atheism. You're just all pissed and not trying over something that's not his fault. I know where he's going because he's already written on it and it isn't the assumptions you're making about agnosticism. And where he’s going, the logic follows bullet proof just like the five things. What are you afraid of? No. QW is as liar. He's a fake, dogmatic, closed-minded prig. His problem with philosophy is that he doesn’t understand what it is and he doesn’t understand logic like he pretended.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

You gave me the opportunity? For what? Did you or did you not ask me what certain terms meant from the beginning? I was accommodating you, as anyone who had my level of thought on these matters would have followed me with no problem. You're the one who started out over definitions. And I pointedly told you I had no problem whatsoever with your definitions and asked for your suggestions. Whatever you want that makes sense to you and is accurate is fine with me. I told you that. So don't give me this crap about me playing games with you and holding things up.

What the hell is going on with you? Why are you being rude and obnoxious out of the blue? I have been nothing but courteous to you?

You asked me to explain what appeared to you to be a contradiction regarding the "atheist cargo." You raised the "atheist cargo," not me. The "atheist cargo" is your friggin' cargo, not mine. There's no contradiction. That's my answer, and I explained to you why there's no contraction.

I politely addressed your "atheist cargo," and your response is to be rude to me for answering your "atheist cargo"? Don't blame me for your ignorance, and don't call what is in fact your ignorance and your inability to follow a very simple thing about atheism my nonsense. Indeed, Justin is right. My son at the age of 12 understood that one!

There's no campaign. Are a paranoid? You're the one asking the questions. I'm answering those questions. Understanding the matter about what the atheist is actually doing is important in order to recognize what follows from the five things. I assumed you understood it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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: 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.

Your version does not answer the question. Your attitude is pissy, rude, shrewish, churlish and childish.

Justin and I have never been anything but courteous to you and even supportive of a number of the ideas you have shared on this thread, because a number of your ideas make good sense. Heretofore you have been objective. Now you've gone all typical, postal atheist.

Justin is politely asking a question that as a theist I am able to recognize the reason for. It is imperative that you be objective and think clearly in order to understand what the theist is telling you about something. How about dropping the attitude? And act like an adult. There's no gotcha in these questions. They pertain to a simple, objective truth about the problem of origin and nothing else. In real objective thought you do not assume the answer. You're assuming things that aren't there!

Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?

Yes. It's possible the theist could be right! But the question is not what you believe in that regard, but why do you believe the theist might be right? What is your reason for believing that? Why? You must have a reason. Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you why you believe that? Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone? Is it too personal? What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over? Are you saying you don't know why you believe the theist might be right?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

He understands the term. It's been defined and discussed on this thread. It's you who doesn't understand what he's talking about. The logic he's referring to has no correlation with inorganic logic whatsoever! He's talking about the fundamental laws of human thought.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

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.

Boring! Atheists exchanging ideas. LOL!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[dblack]

Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?

Yes. It's possible the theist could be right! But the question is not what you believe in that regard, but why do you believe the theist might be right? What is your reason for believing that? Why? You must have a reason. Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you why you believe that? Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone? Is it too personal? What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over? Are you saying you don't know why you believe the theist might be right?

OK, I'll spell it out. The answer then becomes "Atheists don't believe the claims of believers, but there's no proof that they are wrong, so must admit it's possible that they are right" - Again, this is an obvious observation and if that's all you're saying I can't imagine why you'd present it in such convoluted fashion.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

.

Boring!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Justin Davis]

Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?

Yes. It's possible the theist could be right! But the question is not what you believe in that regard, but why do you believe the theist might be right? What is your reason for believing that? Why? You must have a reason. Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you why you believe that? Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone? Is it too personal? What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over? Are you saying you don't know why you believe the theist might be right?

OK, I'll spell it out. The answer then becomes "Atheists don't believe the claims of believers, but there's no proof that they are wrong, so must admit it's possible that they are right" - Again, this is an obvious observation and if that's all you're saying I can't imagine why you'd present it in such convoluted fashion.

Atheists can't be honest or objective about the nature of their belief. The possibly of God's existence cannot be logically denied. Atheism asserts God doesn't exist. That's illogical. That's your convoluted right there. But you can say God exists without any inherent contradiction. Why is that?

 

[dblack]

Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?

Yes. It's possible the theist could be right! But the question is not what you believe in that regard, but why do you believe the theist might be right? What is your reason for believing that? Why? You must have a reason. Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you why you believe that? Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone? Is it too personal? What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over? Are you saying you don't know why you believe the theist might be right?

OK, I'll spell it out. The answer then becomes "Atheists don't believe the claims of believers, but there's no proof that they are wrong, so must admit it's possible that they are right" - Again, this is an obvious observation and if that's all you're saying I can't imagine why you'd present it in such convoluted fashion.

Atheists can't be honest or objective about the nature of their belief. The possibly of God's existence cannot be logically denied. Atheism asserts God doesn't exist. That's illogical. That's your convoluted right there. But you can say God exists without any inherent contradiction. Why is that?

Yes, your strawman is convoluted. Good job.

Now, what the hell is this "five things" argument supposed to prove?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?

Yes. It's possible the theist could be right! But the question is not what you believe in that regard, but why do you believe the theist might be right? What is your reason for believing that? Why? You must have a reason. Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you why you believe that? Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone? Is it too personal? What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over? Are you saying you don't know why you believe the theist might be right?

OK, I'll spell it out. The answer then becomes "Atheists don't believe the claims of believers, but there's no proof that they are wrong, so must admit it's possible that they are right" - Again, this is an obvious observation and if that's all you're saying I can't imagine why you'd present it in such convoluted fashion.

The claims of believers are not relevant. It's your belief that matters here.

You believe the idea of God objectively exists. You know it objectively exists. The reason you know that God's existence cannot be logically ruled is because you objectively believe that the cause of universe, which is the evidence for God's existence, could be God.

1. We exist. 2. Whatever your definition was about the material realm of being exists. 3. The potentially of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.

4. God would necessarily be the supreme Being in all of existence.

Written to GT:

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!

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.

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

The logic for number 4 is right, right?

 

[dblack]

Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?

Yes. It's possible the theist could be right! But the question is not what you believe in that regard, but why do you believe the theist might be right? What is your reason for believing that? Why? You must have a reason. Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you why you believe that? Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone? Is it too personal? What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over? Are you saying you don't know why you believe the theist might be right?

OK, I'll spell it out. The answer then becomes "Atheists don't believe the claims of believers, but there's no proof that they are wrong, so must admit it's possible that they are right" - Again, this is an obvious observation and if that's all you're saying I can't imagine why you'd present it in such convoluted fashion.

The claims of believers are not relevant. It's your belief that matters here.

You believe the idea of God objectively exists. You know it objectively exists. The reason you know that God's existence cannot be logically ruled is because you objectively believe that the cause of universe, which is the evidence for God's existence, could be God.

1. We exist. 2. Whatever your definition was about the material realm of being exists. 3. The potentially of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.

4. God would necessarily be the supreme Being in all of existence.

Written to GT:

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!

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.

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

The logic for number 4 is right, right?

Well, it's not logic, just a definition, but I'll accept it as a premise. Next.

 

[Boss]

4. God would necessarily be the supreme Being in all of existence.

It depends on how one defines a "being." The atheist only recognizes a physical existence, so any "being" would have to be a physical being. Is God a physical being?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?

Yes. It's possible the theist could be right! But the question is not what you believe in that regard, but why do you believe the theist might be right? What is your reason for believing that? Why? You must have a reason. Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you why you believe that? Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone? Is it too personal? What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over? Are you saying you don't know why you believe the theist might be right?

OK, I'll spell it out. The answer then becomes "Atheists don't believe the claims of believers, but there's no proof that they are wrong, so must admit it's possible that they are right" - Again, this is an obvious observation and if that's all you're saying I can't imagine why you'd present it in such convoluted fashion.

The claims of believers are not relevant. It's your belief that matters here.

You believe the idea of God objectively exists. You know it objectively exists. The reason you know that God's existence cannot be logically ruled is because you objectively believe that the cause of universe, which is the evidence for God's existence, could be God.

1. We exist. 2. Whatever your definition was about the material realm of being exists. 3. The potentially of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.

4. God would necessarily be the supreme Being in all of existence.

Written to GT:

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!

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.

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

The logic for number 4 is right, right?

Well, it's not logic, just a definition, but I'll accept it as a premise. Next.

Why is it not logical?

 

[dblack]

Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?

Yes. It's possible the theist could be right! But the question is not what you believe in that regard, but why do you believe the theist might be right? What is your reason for believing that? Why? You must have a reason. Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you why you believe that? Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone? Is it too personal? What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over? Are you saying you don't know why you believe the theist might be right?

OK, I'll spell it out. The answer then becomes "Atheists don't believe the claims of believers, but there's no proof that they are wrong, so must admit it's possible that they are right" - Again, this is an obvious observation and if that's all you're saying I can't imagine why you'd present it in such convoluted fashion.

The claims of believers are not relevant. It's your belief that matters here.

You believe the idea of God objectively exists. You know it objectively exists. The reason you know that God's existence cannot be logically ruled is because you objectively believe that the cause of universe, which is the evidence for God's existence, could be God.

1. We exist. 2. Whatever your definition was about the material realm of being exists. 3. The potentially of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.

4. God would necessarily be the supreme Being in all of existence.

Written to GT:

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!

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.

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

The logic for number 4 is right, right?

Well, it's not logic, just a definition, but I'll accept it as a premise. Next.

Why is it not logical?

It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

You strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel (Matthew 23: 24).​

You're wrong, of course, Boss, you've already talked about the historical and anthropological evidence for human spirituality. That evidence is empirical, just one aspect of the evidence that is part of the universe. Hence, the universe is the evidence for God's existence. Period. That is the simple, uncomplicated, straightforward fact of origin.

The most amazing thing about all of this is that the real dogmatists have gone on and on about how the things I've talked about are overly involved, when in fact everything I've talked about is as simple as the ABCs, 2 + 2 = 4, the color of the sky, the days of the week, a dog with a bone.

I laid down the foundation because I know from experience that most folks live reactionary lives and don't think outside the box, ponder the wondrous, unbound potentialities of infinity, and so they pile convoluted . . . shrooms on top of convoluted shrooms until the simplest things of cognition that a child understands at first blush are turned into mountains of controversy over nothing.

What does the term atheist mean and what are its inherent connotations relative to the existence of the universe and the universal idea of God?
2 + 2 = 4?

No, by golly! 2 + 2 = 7 or maybe 21. But then again, maybe, just maybe, 2 + 2 = 1032 on Fridays or 63 on Sundays.

Seriously? This is rocket science?

The Five Things. . . .

(1) We exist. (2) The cosmological order exists. (3) The axioms of organic logic hold that God exists, though the barrier of faith remains in terms of ultimacy. (4) By definition God is the Supreme Being of unparalleled, absolute perfection unto infinity. (5) We cannot verify God's existence via the means of science, because science is limited to affirmations about material things as inferred from direct physical evidence.

Simple.

And from these simple truths of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin a whole host of other simple truths follow, one after the other in logical harmony: any given existent, for example, may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously. Hence, we may know that actual free will and absolute omniscience can coexist in an existentially multidimensional transcendent-cosmological order of being.

Simple?

Yes!

Yet the implications are staggeringly complex.

But for some, it can't be that simple from the jump. We can't just go with the natural flow of the fundamental absolutes of logic: the commonsensical ramifications of the universal principle of identity. Heaven forbid! Instead, things must be convoluted, distorted, confounded, conflated, obscured to the point that all one is left with is a pile of subjective mush, an endless merry-go-round of duh that actually circumvents the exploration of the contents of our minds, which would otherwise divulge the harmonious, albeit, staggeringly complex implications of reality.

The simple absolutes actually reveal complexity, while the convoluted mush of supposed open-mindedness gets us nowhere and creates a whole host of paradoxical quagmires that stifle the exploration of the infinite potentialities. In short, the latter are banalities that reveal nothing of interest at all.

This is the very same point that Jesus Christ—the Principle of Identity, the universal Logos of infinite potentiality—made about the closed-minded, pharisaic dogmatists of His time, who refused to allow for the simple truths of first principles so that the grandeur of the infinitely complex reality of realities standing right in front of them might be revealed to them:

You strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.​

 

[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.

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.

Boring! Atheists exchanging ideas. LOL!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Such are the wages of religious extremism.

Spamming the thread with such nonsense really invites a lot of questions about your ability to actually address the issues you have so far sidestepped.

 

[BreezeWood]

Edit: God means the uncreated Creator.

that does not preclude God was created from "nothing" but simply not by something - binary forces as good and evil are non existent elements of the Everlasting that by their presence have created a being controlling one from the other, the same as physiology is made possible by the presence of matter and is then given life, direction by the Creation of the Everlasting.

.

 

[Boss]

Rawlings, I agree it's all very simple once you accept the evidence as evidence. I posted a thread a while back entitled "Definitive Proof God Exists." It enjoyed a good little run here with lots of pages of commentary. The OP begins by addressing each individual word of that phrase and how the Theist vs. Atheist recognize and comprehend those words in meaning. Of course, the Atheists never agreed that I had definitively proven God's existence, but that wasn't the point of the thread.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?

Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a yes or no?

That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

 

[G.T.]

It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?

Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a yes or no?

That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

To #4, no.

To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.