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

[Justin Davis]

But there you go again, changing what he said. You're playing shell games on yourslef. The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things. All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation. He isn't saying they prove God exists at all. The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you? Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly. So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate. At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss." See? I willing to bet that's what he means.

Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.

I asked you a fucking question. What are the 5 things? You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.

Five things:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 110 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I thought they were these:

. We exist!
2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
4. The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
5. However, science cannot currently verify whether or not God exists.

They are. That's them.

 

[dblack]

Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?

M.P. Rawlings: It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
Justin Davis: What he said!
Hollie:
Boss:
Emily:
GT:
dblack: My local used car salesman is more compelling.
sealybobo: What are the five things?
Treeshepherd:
Breezewood:

Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)

Updated:

Totals:

Yes: 2
No:
WTF??: 2

I found them!

1. We exist. Yes
2. The universe exists? Yes
3. The possibility that God exists. Yes
4. No the thing that created us doesn't have to necessarily be perfect in fact there are a whole host of problems athiests/science has with this god supposedly being perfect yet so much is not perfect with the universe. If a god exists, no he probably isn't perfect and everywhere at every moment. Or maybe he is? Who knows?
5 No we can't prove the imaginary invisible man you believe exists is not real.

None of this proves a god exists. We exist, the universe exists, a god could exist, if the god you describe exists, he would be "perfect", but then again we'd have a lot of questions to ask him if he was perfect and all knowing. Why give kids cancer? No son he is not perfect.

Yeah. I know. But we're too stupid to understand the subtleties of this brilliant, irrefutable proof. That's why I put us down for "WTF???" in the poll. Feel free to edit your response if you have a different take.

 

[sealybobo]

But there you go again, changing what he said. You're playing shell games on yourslef. The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things. All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation. He isn't saying they prove God exists at all. The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you? Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly. So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate. At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss." See? I willing to bet that's what he means.

Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.

Just stick to the five things. Those you get. The idea about God's existence being proven is based on something else, not the five things. That's all. It's the laws of thought, identity, contradiction, excluded middle (together, the principle of identity) that prove God's existence. Remember? We can see that in the transcendental argument, which is an entirely different thing from the five things. Don't confuse them. But you won't think the transcendental argument through, so yeah that's the part you don't get. Anyone can see it, you just won't let yourself see it.

Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

 

[Justin Davis]

But there you go again, changing what he said. You're playing shell games on yourslef. The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things. All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation. He isn't saying they prove God exists at all. The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you? Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly. So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate. At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss." See? I willing to bet that's what he means.

Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.

I asked you a fucking question. What are the 5 things? You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.

I honestly don't know. Apparently it's M.P.Rawlings' version of the Transcendental Argument for God. The point is, Rawlings/Davis claims that "virtually everyone on this thread" has acknowledged that the five things are true. It just sounded like more bullshit, so I wanted to see if it was true.

Its bullshit.

That we and the universe exist, that God as the creator can't be logically ruled out, that God would have to be greater than anything created by Him and that science can't verify if God exists or not. How's is any of that bullshit? You know it's not, and Rawlings isn't saying those are the things that prove God's existence. dblack just all confused.

 

[dblack]

But there you go again, changing what he said. You're playing shell games on yourslef. The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things. All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation. He isn't saying they prove God exists at all. The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you? Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly. So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate. At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss." See? I willing to bet that's what he means.

Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.

I asked you a fucking question. What are the 5 things? You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.

I honestly don't know. Apparently it's M.P.Rawlings' version of the Transcendental Argument for God. The point is, Rawlings/Davis claims that "virtually everyone on this thread" has acknowledged that the five things are true. It just sounded like more bullshit, so I wanted to see if it was true.

Its bullshit.

That we and the universe exist, that God as the creator can't be logically ruled out, that God would have to be greater than anything created by Him and that science can't verify if God exists or not. How's is any of that bullshit? You know it's not, and Rawlings isn't saying those are the things that prove God's existence. dblack just all confused.

You can say that again. None of this bullshit makes any sense to me.

 

[sealybobo]

But there you go again, changing what he said. You're playing shell games on yourslef. The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things. All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation. He isn't saying they prove God exists at all. The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you? Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly. So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate. At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss." See? I willing to bet that's what he means.

Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.

I asked you a fucking question. What are the 5 things? You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.

I honestly don't know. Apparently it's M.P.Rawlings' version of the Transcendental Argument for God. The point is, Rawlings/Davis claims that "virtually everyone on this thread" has acknowledged that the five things are true. It just sounded like more bullshit, so I wanted to see if it was true.

Its bullshit.

That we and the universe exist, that God as the creator can't be logically ruled out, that God would have to be greater than anything created by Him and that science can't verify if God exists or not. How's is any of that bullshit? You know it's not, and Rawlings isn't saying those are the things that prove God's existence. dblack just all confused.

Well I could give you 5 absolutes and you would have to agree with them too. 1 Your bible could be completely made up. 2 God maybe never talked to Adam and the Noah Story could be made up. 3. You can't explain to us how a virgin gave birth. 4. Your bibles could have been corrupted by the Popes during the Dark Ages. 5. Ok I can only give you 4 but I have to go.

 

[Justin Davis]

Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?

M.P. Rawlings: It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
Justin Davis: What he said!
Hollie:
Boss:
Emily:
GT:
dblack: My local used car salesman is more compelling.
sealybobo: What are the five things?
Treeshepherd:
Breezewood:

Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)

Updated:

Totals:

Yes: 2
No:
WTF??: 2

I found them!

1. We exist. Yes
2. The universe exists? Yes
3. The possibility that God exists. Yes
4. No the thing that created us doesn't have to necessarily be perfect in fact there are a whole host of problems athiests/science has with this god supposedly being perfect yet so much is not perfect with the universe. If a god exists, no he probably isn't perfect and everywhere at every moment. Or maybe he is? Who knows?
5 No we can't prove the imaginary invisible man you believe exists is not real.

None of this proves a god exists. We exist, the universe exists, a god could exist, if the god you describe exists, he would be "perfect", but then again we'd have a lot of questions to ask him if he was perfect and all knowing. Why give kids cancer? No son he is not perfect.

Yeah. I know. But we're too stupid to understand the subtleties of this brilliant, irrefutable proof. That's why I put us down for "WTF???" in the poll. Feel free to edit your response if you have a different take.

The five things are not the proof! Hello! Stop repeating dback's confusion. Nobody but dblack is thinking that the five things are supposed prove God's existence. Do you people not read and think for yourselves?

A guy in a red shirt with a stolen purse runs by. And there's a street camera on the scene.

You come along later and someone tells you that the guy who ran by with the stolen purse was not wearing a red shirt, but a white shirt, and you go gluck, gluck, gluck without looking at the video or in this case without reading what Rawlings actually wrote.

 

[sealybobo]

But there you go again, changing what he said. You're playing shell games on yourslef. The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things. All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation. He isn't saying they prove God exists at all. The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you? Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly. So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate. At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss." See? I willing to bet that's what he means.

Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.

I asked you a fucking question. What are the 5 things? You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.

I honestly don't know. Apparently it's M.P.Rawlings' version of the Transcendental Argument for God. The point is, Rawlings/Davis claims that "virtually everyone on this thread" has acknowledged that the five things are true. It just sounded like more bullshit, so I wanted to see if it was true.

Its bullshit.

That we and the universe exist, that God as the creator can't be logically ruled out, that God would have to be greater than anything created by Him and that science can't verify if God exists or not. How's is any of that bullshit? You know it's not, and Rawlings isn't saying those are the things that prove God's existence. dblack just all confused.

This very basic primitive logic is how our ancestors came up with god. Science says you are wrong or you don't have enough evidence to decide yet but still you insist god exists.

In fact your wild stories of virgin births and floods fascinated me as a young boy but then I GREW UP! I have to go.

I really enjoy USMB. Good night. Vote Democratic everyone!

 

[Justin Davis]

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” - Douglas Adams

Yeah and of course theists don't think like that at all, but I guess that's the security blanket Adams needs to make himself feel all warm in cozy in his shrinking world of no God, otherwise he'd have to really look at the facts and what theists actually believe and why. Can't do that. The delusions are more comforting. Gluck, gluck, gluck.

 

[Justin Davis]

Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.

You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is not truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you know that is true? Because you believe that is true? It’s not possible to believer a falsehood?

We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle? Sure.
But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.

But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.

There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!

In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality might be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.

Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume without always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.

Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!

Logic is telling us that reality is infinitely more complex than that!

You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.

Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever know truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.

The only thing that can know truth is God.

Then nothing can know truth because there is no god. That's sad huh?

I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything". Is that what you meant?

P.S. I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god. His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is. There is a god because there must be.

And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.

Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian. Do you know what you are? A cherry picker. You are like a tea bagger or libertarian. Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off. A cherry picker. You believe in generic god and hell. And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.

More people are atheists than agree with your version of god. Think about that for a minute. Why do they all believe different things? Because it's all in their heads.

There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.

Dear Sealybobo:
Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?

Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?

You can't prove it. No one can. But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out. God tells us he's here.

There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence.

Argument from wishful thinking. The primary psychological role of traditional religion is deathist rationalisation, that is, rationalising the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.

There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.

In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

Yeah. Let us known when you want to stop thinking about irrelevancies, which amount to saying God doesn't exist over and over to yourself, and get back to the objective truths about existence and origin.

 

[Justin Davis]

Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.

I asked you a fucking question. What are the 5 things? You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.

I honestly don't know. Apparently it's M.P.Rawlings' version of the Transcendental Argument for God. The point is, Rawlings/Davis claims that "virtually everyone on this thread" has acknowledged that the five things are true. It just sounded like more bullshit, so I wanted to see if it was true.

Its bullshit.

That we and the universe exist, that God as the creator can't be logically ruled out, that God would have to be greater than anything created by Him and that science can't verify if God exists or not. How's is any of that bullshit? You know it's not, and Rawlings isn't saying those are the things that prove God's existence. dblack just all confused.

This very basic primitive logic is how our ancestors came up with god. Science says you are wrong or you don't have enough evidence to decide yet but still you insist god exists.

In fact your wild stories of virgin births and floods fascinated me as a young boy but then I GREW UP! I have to go.

I really enjoy USMB. Good night. Vote Democratic everyone!

Science says no such thing. Only ill-educated ninnies spout such pseudoscientific gluck, gluck, gluck. And only silly people pretend that the five things aren't true.

 

[dblack]

Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?

M.P. Rawlings: It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
Justin Davis: What he said!
Hollie:
Boss:
Emily:
GT:
dblack: My local used car salesman is more compelling.
sealybobo: What are the five things?
Treeshepherd:
Breezewood:

Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)

Updated:

Totals:

Yes: 2
No:
WTF??: 2

I found them!

1. We exist. Yes
2. The universe exists? Yes
3. The possibility that God exists. Yes
4. No the thing that created us doesn't have to necessarily be perfect in fact there are a whole host of problems athiests/science has with this god supposedly being perfect yet so much is not perfect with the universe. If a god exists, no he probably isn't perfect and everywhere at every moment. Or maybe he is? Who knows?
5 No we can't prove the imaginary invisible man you believe exists is not real.

None of this proves a god exists. We exist, the universe exists, a god could exist, if the god you describe exists, he would be "perfect", but then again we'd have a lot of questions to ask him if he was perfect and all knowing. Why give kids cancer? No son he is not perfect.

Yeah. I know. But we're too stupid to understand the subtleties of this brilliant, irrefutable proof. That's why I put us down for "WTF???" in the poll. Feel free to edit your response if you have a different take.

The five things are not the proof! Hello! Stop repeating dback's confusion. Nobody but dblack is thinking that the five things are supposed prove God's existence. Do you people not read and think for yourselves?

A guy in a red shirt with a stolen purse runs by. And there's a street camera on the scene.

You come along later and someone tells you that the guy who ran by with the stolen purse was not wearing a red shirt, but a white shirt, and you go gluck, gluck, gluck without looking at the video or in this case without reading what Rawlings actually wrote.

Clear as mud.

 

[BreezeWood]

I have looked at my societies main organized religion and decided it is bullshit. Some people who do what I do turn to Hindu, Budda, Muslim, Jew (Sammy Davis Jr.) Mormon, Born agains. We want to be religious. We want there to be a god.

And if my societies organized religion is made up, what does it matter if I don't believe in god? They say I'll go to hell. They are fucked up and stupid and hypocrites. If there is a god he would reward my intelligence not your stupidity. Sorry, tough love.

Only a god can say he is 100% an atheist because he would have to be able to be in all places at one time. A god basically. So we admit not to be certain. But certain your gods don't exist? That we are. So we are atheists when it comes to your god, not a generic one.

I disagree with " So we admit not to be certain " as being an impediment for the individual to accomplish the goal of Spiritual existence post physiology - whether there is an Almighty or not is irrelevant in accomplishing the goal first that itself will either answer the question or by its sucess make the answer answerable. -

engineering life must be a multispiritual endeavor, the possibility certainly exist to join the effort, doubt is the seed for failure.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.

The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.

Get over it people.

.

Since percysunshine GT and me seem to agree and get this point,
how can we get MD on the same page?

You can't get me on that page because it's not true! The laws of organic/classical thought entail a rationally direct and absolutely incontrovertible proof for God's existence, formally known as the Transcendental Argument. This centuries-old proof, expounded in the Book of Job and formally iterated by Kant in a syllogism cannot be refuted on any grounds whatsoever! That's an academic fact of human cognition and an uncontested doctrine in the philosophical cannon. The silly things spouted by the post-modern denizens of popular culture is sheer ignorance, historical and literary ignorance. Ultimately, it's the ignorance of persons who have never thought the matter through or have never realized what the organic laws of thought prove to us all. The proof is incontrovertibly self-evident. It is not like any of the other classical arguments for God's existence. The other proofs are evidentiary proofs, which support the conclusion that God must be for sure, but are not direct proofs; rather, they are indirect, rational and/or empirical proofs.

I trust that you understand this from the detailed posts on the alleged objection of begging the question which is in fact fallacious, as the major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an absolute axiom of human cognition. It holds just like 2 + 2 = 4 holds. It cannot be denied. But more importantly, see Post #2190, which explains the truly profound significance of this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009974/

You guys need to get on the page of the organic/classical laws of human thought that are biologically hardwired by nature. It's an axiom! Axiomatic proofs cannot be overturned. I will eventually get to this argument specifically and show why it is an axiom as soon as I address your proven-unproven dichotomy, which is rationally and scientifically fallacious in general, and the problem with what you're saying about things like infinity, eternity and perfection.

Trust me. You've got these things wrong.

Also, please read these posts:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009327/
#2186
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009400/
#2187
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009472/
#2188

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MD I'm SORRY that people cannot be magically perfect
and drop their emotions and associations that are negative
to focus on these points.

Emily, I know this. I understand the psychology. I'm a former Army NCO. I understand leadership, motivation, cooperation and the dynamics of team work and group think. Have more faith that there's rhyme to my reason.

The hardest folks to reach are hardcore religionists, which has nothing to do with formal religious affiliation or non-affiliation; rather it's the religion of belief in the things of the material world and not the belief in the inner truth of the mind, that still small voice of God. We are all entangled in this religion to some degree or another, some more than others. The key is understanding this so that one may get free of it, systematically shed the dead weight of it.

As I have written elsewhere:
.

Yes. God is the first principle, albeit, for the universe, not of it. He is the transcendent Principle of Identity contingent on nothing.

He is the ground for all existence, and, of course, the universal principle of identity (the comprehensive expression of the rational and moral laws of thought) endowed by God to man, is grounded in Him, as He is the fullness of that principle. The fundamental laws of thought are reliable for this reason. The comprehensive expression/principle of the rational and moral laws of thought are stamped by God on our minds. This is His image and what sets us apart from all other creatures of the terrestrial order. It's His name, put on us as His property.

The voice we hear as our own in our minds when we faithfully apply the comprehensive principle of identity (the logic of God) to any given problem is in fact His voice speaking the wisdom thusly divulged. God is talking to us all the time. It's that still small voice heard in the objectively uncluttered quite of the principle of identity. "I AM! I'm hear! Listen to Me! Stop listening to the baby talk of subjective mush that leads to nowhere. Stop going around and around that mulberry tree." --Rawlings​

Please read my posts from today. Tomorrow I will return to your post that I started to address regarding number 4 of The Five Things, which gets at your proven-disproven dichotomy, and things like infinity, eternity, perfection. . . .

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?

M.P. Rawlings: It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
Justin Davis: What he said!
Hollie:
Boss:
Emily:
GT:
dblack: My local used car salesman is more compelling.
sealybobo: What are the five things?
Treeshepherd:
Breezewood:

Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)

Updated:

Totals:

Yes: 2
No:
WTF??: 2

I found them!

1. We exist. Yes
2. The universe exists? Yes
3. The possibility that God exists. Yes
4. No the thing that created us doesn't have to necessarily be perfect in fact there are a whole host of problems athiests/science has with this god supposedly being perfect yet so much is not perfect with the universe. If a god exists, no he probably isn't perfect and everywhere at every moment. Or maybe he is? Who knows?
5 No we can't prove the imaginary invisible man you believe exists is not real.

None of this proves a god exists. We exist, the universe exists, a god could exist, if the god you describe exists, he would be "perfect", but then again we'd have a lot of questions to ask him if he was perfect and all knowing. Why give kids cancer? No son he is not perfect.

Yeah. I know. But we're too stupid to understand the subtleties of this brilliant, irrefutable proof. That's why I put us down for "WTF???" in the poll. Feel free to edit your response if you have a different take.

The five things are not the proof! Hello! Stop repeating dback's confusion. Nobody but dblack is thinking that the five things are supposed prove God's existence. Do you people not read and think for yourselves?

A guy in a red shirt with a stolen purse runs by. And there's a street camera on the scene.

You come along later and someone tells you that the guy who ran by with the stolen purse was not wearing a red shirt, but a white shirt, and you go gluck, gluck, gluck without looking at the video or in this case without reading what Rawlings actually wrote.

Clear as mud.

The Five Things are crystal clear. Don't worry about the rest for now. Just see the posts I wrote to Boss, sealybobo and Emily (10/20/2014) sans the reference to the TAG and the thing about the voice of God. The rest I know you can understand. I will explain why number 4 of the Five Things holds too tomorrow.

 

[Boss]

[Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.

I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.

Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.

Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is not truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you know that is true? Because you believe that is true? It’s not possible to believer a falsehood?

We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle? Sure.
But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.

But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.

There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!

In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality might be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.

Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume without always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.

Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!

Logic is telling us that reality is infinitely more complex than that!

You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.

Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever know truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.

The only thing that can know truth is God.

Then nothing can know truth because there is no god. That's sad huh?

I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything". Is that what you meant?

P.S. I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god. His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is. There is a god because there must be.

And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.

Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian. Do you know what you are? A cherry picker. You are like a tea bagger or libertarian. Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off. A cherry picker. You believe in generic god and hell. And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.

More people are atheists than agree with your version of god. Think about that for a minute. Why do they all believe different things? Because it's all in their heads.

There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.

Silly boob, your Dad sounds like a much smarter man than you, your Mom must have been a real air head. Tell me, when does your "phase" move back into "agnostic" mode where you maintain we don't know for sure? Is this a monthly cycle thing or does it come and go?

My version of God is very fluid. 95% of the species believes in my God, they've merely customized their version to taste. Only 5% of the species believes in Nothing.

 

[G.T.]

No serious rational person accepts the TAG as good argument, sorry. Its presuppositional horse hooey that begs the question.

Uses the word inside of its definition.

Is retarded.

Also, 2 & 2 = 4 doesn't beg the question.

 

[G.T.]

[Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.

I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.

Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.

Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is not truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you know that is true? Because you believe that is true? It’s not possible to believer a falsehood?

We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle? Sure.
But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.

But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.

There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!

In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality might be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.

Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume without always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.

Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!

Logic is telling us that reality is infinitely more complex than that!

You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.

Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever know truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.

The only thing that can know truth is God.

Then nothing can know truth because there is no god. That's sad huh?

I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything". Is that what you meant?

P.S. I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god. His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is. There is a god because there must be.

And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.

Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian. Do you know what you are? A cherry picker. You are like a tea bagger or libertarian. Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off. A cherry picker. You believe in generic god and hell. And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.

More people are atheists than agree with your version of god. Think about that for a minute. Why do they all believe different things? Because it's all in their heads.

There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.

Silly boob, your Dad sounds like a much smarter man than you, your Mom must have been a real air head. Tell me, when does your "phase" move back into "agnostic" mode where you maintain we don't know for sure? Is this a monthly cycle thing or does it come and go?

My version of God is very fluid. 95% of the species believes in my God, they've merely customized their version to taste. Only 5% of the species believes in Nothing.

Saying that about his mom is both against the rules here, and also a jerk move.

 

[Hollie]

Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?

M.P. Rawlings: It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
Justin Davis: What he said!
Hollie:
Boss:
Emily:
GT:
dblack: My local used car salesman is more compelling.
sealybobo: What are the five things?
Treeshepherd:
Breezewood:

Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)

Updated:

Totals:

Yes: 2
No:
WTF??: 2

My vote is definitely WTF??