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

[M.D. Rawlings]

You're implying that anyone who denies that your five points are objectively true doesn't have a sound and developmentally mature mind.

No. I'm not imply that. I'm emphatically stating that. Anyone with a sound, developmentally mature mind (not a young child, someone suffering from a mental disorder or someone who is mentally retarded) can see that the five things are objectively true! Period. I didn't say anything about going to hell? LOL! There's nothing controversial about the cognitive facts of the five things or the kind of minds that might not be able to grasp them.

You have not once objected to what's actually being said. Not once! Not ever! Instead you argue over things that aren't there, aren't real. Just stay with the five things. None of the #6s or #7s or #8s or #9s or #10s or #11s that you keep adding to these five uncontroversial things exist!

So what? Why do you such a boner for These Five Things?

What's your boner about the five things? LOL! You've been going ape shit for pages over nothing controversial at all! You just said, again, in this post, that you agree: they are objectively true. And I didn't change them. I merely simplified their expression. The first post on them explained them. Now all we need it a simple list.

You quibble over every friggin' thing, things that are nothing. Get a grip.

As for their significance, number 4 of the Five Things is the key, and I have already shown that the MPTAG universally, objectively and absolutely holds true as an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4. It's logically impossible for a human being to deny God’s existence without logically assuming that He does exist and, therefore, without logically proving that He does exist. Note the word logically. A human being cannot deny God’s existence without contradicting himself as he simultaneously violates the three fundamental laws of organic/classical thought biologically hardwired in our brains.

That is an historically, empirically and experientially fact of human cognition. Notwithstanding, this does not mean that science can verify what logic tells us must be true about God: Number 5 of the five things.

Every friggin' one of G.T's arguments are in fact proving this to be true! He just keeps changing terms or jumping to conclusions that don't follow. That's what he calling me a liar about, but only because he either can't see this simple and obvious truth or he's intentionally manipulating the flow of logic in order to avoid this truth.

That's his problem, not mine. But I can easily show you where he's screwing his logic.

I am discussing the things that follow with Emily right now, clearing up confusion about the difference between logic and science, proof and verification, invalidation and falsification, the definitions of infinity, perfection, eternity . . . and then finally I will come back to the MPTAG specifically once all of the things that are clouding her understand are fixed.

 

[G.T.]

TAG begs the question.

Sorry bub, that doesnt become my problem, it's yours.

It's logically impossible to PROVE god exists, as well as prove he doesn't, you assert that he/she/it exists you cannot prove that. You have not proven that. Douche. Also - saying god may not exist is not the same as saying knowledge may not exist, thus it doesnt prove your case when one denies your case................. that's called hubris. (and being a cock, but that's neither here n'or there).

In order to PROVE "god is necessary for knowledge to exist," you must FIRST ABSOLUTELY prove any and all other theories wrong.

Can't do it?

Can't presuppose god then and use tag and call it sound. Idiot.

 

[G.T.]

TAG is not an adult argument. It's an argument for children with big eyes, sort of like conspiracy theorists.

It's low hanging fruit. It's childish.

 

[dblack]

. As for their significance, number 4 of the Five Things is the key, and I have already shown that the MPTAG universally, objectively and absolutely holds true as an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4. It's logically impossible for a human being to deny God’s existence without logically assuming that He does exist and, therefore, without logically proving that He does exist. Note the word logically. A human being cannot deny God’s existence without contradicting himself as he simultaneously violates the three fundamental laws of organic/classical thought biologically hardwired in our brains.

Where did you "show" this? Got a link? All I've seen are unsupported claims. Like this one.

Let me ask you this, is MPTAG accurate as presented by GT above? If so, it's quite a let down, and nothing about "The Five Things" supports it. Where is it established that human knowledge presupposes a god?

You've yet to make that case from what I've read.

 

[G.T.]

. As for their significance, number 4 of the Five Things is the key, and I have already shown that the MPTAG universally, objectively and absolutely holds true as an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4. It's logically impossible for a human being to deny God’s existence without logically assuming that He does exist and, therefore, without logically proving that He does exist. Note the word logically. A human being cannot deny God’s existence without contradicting himself as he simultaneously violates the three fundamental laws of organic/classical thought biologically hardwired in our brains.

Where did you "show" this? Got a link? All I've seen are unsupported claims. Like this one.

Let me ask you this, is MPTAG accurate as presented by GT above? If so, it's quite a let down, and nothing about "The Five Things" supports it. Where is it established that human knowledge presupposes a god?

You've yet to make that case from what I've read.

TAGgers hold that truth requires a transcendent authority.

Aside from TAG being horrible form, in that it begs the question hard as balls, its major premise also creates a false dilemma.

If absolute truth is only absolute because it transcends conscious minds - - - - then it can't be based on god because then it's not transcending minds, but based on someone's opinion of what is true - In this case, god's.

The primacy of existence has lots of TAGger objections, but cannot be PROVEN incorrect, so using god as absolute truth's authority is quite the irrational leap in any thinking man's wind tunnel.

Presuppers cannot see the error of their ways, though, because they start with their conclusion and build their case later (beg the question), whereas a rational person is quite content with calling tag childish horseshit. It's snake oil for dopes.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Knowledge requires a knower.
Sentient brains exist.
Knowledge exists.

G.T. you're not following the dialectic rules syllogistic arguments. You keep jumping to conclusions that are not supported by your syllogism. You have to put all of your premises and your ultimate conclusion in the syllogism. You're not doing that, and because you're not doing that you keep coming up with bullshit.

But before we get to that, a few of your definitional errors need to be corrected.

First, knowledge and logic (not their descriptors, the terms that denote them, but their essences) are not descriptors! Descriptors are the names we put on things to denote their identity or meaning.

Descriptors are names, labels or tags!

de·scrip·tor
diˈskriptər/
noun

1. an element or term that has the function of describing, identifying, or indexing, in particular.
2. a word or expression used to describe or identify something.

Second, knowledge and logic don't describe things. Sentient beings describe things using these tools! Mindless things don't think or describe or define. We do! There has to be a knower first in order for knowledge to exist. You just proved these things, and then you turn around and say they're not true after all!

What knowledge describes does not require a knower.

So knowledge describes things (which is false, as it's actually sentient beings, using logic and previous knowledge, who describe things, not the knowledge they have or logic they use), but there's no knower around to have the knowledge which you alleged describes something?!!!!!!!

 

[G.T.]

More word games.

In your def. Of descriptor - knowledge and logic fit. You don't agree? You're not very smart to begin with, you're a pseudointellectual snake oil salesman, OR, gullible as shit. Here's how many fucks I give: <---

As soon as you can prove that knowledge and logic and truth and absolutes require a conscious transcendent authority - well then you're not only a savant, but you're MAGIC!

BUT YOU CANT.

AND THAT YOU CANT....means using tag as a proof of anything is not rational. Its derp level nonsense.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Knowledge requires a knower.
Sentient brains exist.
Knowledge exists.

Continued. . . .

Hence, a knower/logician comes before knowledge. The knower/logician uses logic and the knowledge derived as tools to further advance what he knows, and quite obviously, as your syllogism proves, describing things using the tools of logic and previously established knowledge requires a describer/knower.

Knowledge, logic or mindless rocks don't describe things. Knowers that have knowledge and logic describe things.

What you're obviously trying to say is that whatever exists, exists, whether there exists a sentient brain to know what exists or not. Think and say things clearly, accurately and logically. Otherwise, you trick yourself into believing things that aren't there or in evidence, things that aren't rational or true.

And since your major premise uses the term knower, stick with the term knower, in this case, a human being, and thusly defined proceed.


Now, let's put everything you keep interjecting outside the confines of your syllogism and see what we really get:

1. Knowledge requires a knower.
2. Human knowers exist.
3. Hence, knowledge exists.
4. Human knowers believe that certain things must exist in order for them to exist.
5. Human knowers believe these certain things must have existed before they existed.
6. Hence, Human knowers believe that these certain things do not have to be known to exist by human knowers in order for them to exist.
7. Human knowers believe these things existed before them.
8. Hence, Human knowers believe that whatever exists, exists.
_______________________________________________________

1. First Premise of the facts in evidence: the following syllogism is true and does not conflict with the TAG:

1. Knowledge requires a knower.
2. Human knowers exist.
3. Hence, knowledge exists.​

2. Second Premise of the facts in evidence: the following syllogism is true and does not conflict with the TAG:

1. Knowledge requires a knower.
2. Human knowers exist.
3. Hence, knowledge exists.
4. Human knowers believe that certain things must exist in order for them to exist.
5. Human knowers believe these certain things must have existed before they existed.
6. Hence, Human knowers believe that these certain things do not have to be known to exist by human knowers in order for them to exist.
7. Human knowers believe these things existed before them.
8. Hence, Human knowers believe that whatever exists, exists.
​

3. Conclusion of the facts in evidence: you have not refuted the TAG.

 

[G.T.]

I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.

TAG is not even submissable to begin with.

Holy fucking shit.

 

[dblack]

I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.

TAG is not even submissable to begin with.

Holy fucking shit.

Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?

 

[G.T.]

I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.

TAG is not even submissable to begin with.

Holy fucking shit.

Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?

I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

More word games.

In your def. Of descriptor - knowledge and logic fit. You don't agree? You're not very smart to begin with, you're a pseudointellectual snake oil salesman, OR, gullible as shit. Here's how many fucks I give: <---

As soon as you can prove that knowledge and logic and truth and absolutes require a conscious transcendent authority - well then you're not only a savant, but you're MAGIC!

BUT YOU CANT.

AND THAT YOU CANT....means using tag as a proof of anything is not rational. Its derp level nonsense.

You equated knowledge and logic as such to the names or labels or tags we, the describers/knowers, give things.

You averred that knowledge and logic describe things when quite obviously they do not. Persons describe things using knowledge and logic.

You're a pathological liar. Instead of conceding your definitional and logical errors you lie. You're a punk. Is this how you're raising daughter, to be a pathological liar like you?

You are refuted, punk.

 

[dblack]

I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.

TAG is not even submissable to begin with.

Holy fucking shit.

Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?

I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS

Well, this is what I was smelling in #4:

"4. [if] God as Creator [exists he] would logically be the greatest thing that exists."

Yeah, and if not, not. I guess we're not suppose to notice that this is just an unfounded assumption.

 

[Justin Davis]

More word games.

In your def. Of descriptor - knowledge and logic fit. You don't agree? You're not very smart to begin with, you're a pseudointellectual snake oil salesman, OR, gullible as shit. Here's how many fucks I give: <---

As soon as you can prove that knowledge and logic and truth and absolutes require a conscious transcendent authority - well then you're not only a savant, but you're MAGIC!

BUT YOU CANT.

AND THAT YOU CANT....means using tag as a proof of anything is not rational. Its derp level nonsense.

You equated knowledge and logic as such to the names or labels or tags we, the describers/knowers, give things.

You averred that knowledge and logic describe things when quite obviously they do not. Persons describe things using knowledge and logic.

You're a pathological liar. Instead of conceding your definitional and logical errors you lie. You're a punk. Is this how you're raising daughter, to be a pathological liar like you?

You are refuted, punk.

Yep. He's a punk.

 

[Justin Davis]

I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.

TAG is not even submissable to begin with.

Holy fucking shit.

So why did you try to refute it, punk? Why did you lie about definitions, punk? Why did you jump out of the syllogism and start saying things that don't follow, punk? You've obviously a liar, punk. Only pussies play girly games like this, punk. What a punk. What a pussy. If you were on my plumbing crew, I put my boot up your ass, punk.

 

[hazlnut]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

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

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

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

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

This is my evidence that God was here...

...and he gave artists something to aspire to.

 

[dblack]

Yep. He's a punk.

 

[G.T.]

More word games.

In your def. Of descriptor - knowledge and logic fit. You don't agree? You're not very smart to begin with, you're a pseudointellectual snake oil salesman, OR, gullible as shit. Here's how many fucks I give: <---

As soon as you can prove that knowledge and logic and truth and absolutes require a conscious transcendent authority - well then you're not only a savant, but you're MAGIC!

BUT YOU CANT.

AND THAT YOU CANT....means using tag as a proof of anything is not rational. Its derp level nonsense.

You equated knowledge and logic as such to the names or labels or tags we, the describers/knowers, give things.

You averred that knowledge and logic describe things when quite obviously they do not. Persons describe things using knowledge and logic.

You're a pathological liar. Instead of conceding your definitional and logical errors you lie. You're a punk. Is this how you're raising daughter, to be a pathological liar like you?

You are refuted, punk.

Hey scumbag, keep your snake oil comments about my daughter to your irrational self, Kay?

Presuppers. Oy.

 

[Justin Davis]

I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.

TAG is not even submissable to begin with.

Holy fucking shit.

Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?

I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS

Well, this is what I was smelling in #4:

"4. [if] God as Creator [exists he] would logically be the greatest thing that exists."

Yeah, and if not, not. I guess we're not suppose to notice that this is just an unfounded assumption.

#4 has nothing to do the with ontological argument which is what you're talking about. Wrong again.

 

[Justin Davis]

I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.

TAG is not even submissable to begin with.

Holy fucking shit.

Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?

I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS

Well, this is what I was smelling in #4:

"4. [if] God as Creator [exists he] would logically be the greatest thing that exists."

Yeah, and if not, not. I guess we're not suppose to notice that this is just an unfounded assumption.

#4 has nothing to do the with ontological argument which is what you're talking about.