I don't try to 'refute' it. Dipshit. I never once said its first premise is not true, I said its not.proven so it can't be USED as a proof. Try and keep up.
Cheerleader.
Figures you're a fuckin plumber the way you stroke md's pipe for him.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
- Thread starter newpolitics
- Start date
Cheerleader.
Figures you're a fuckin plumber the way you stroke md's pipe for him.
I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERSI 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?
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.
Hey - full disclosure: this TAG thing makes NO sense to me, so I'm not even pretending to understand it. Either I'm too stupid, or it's a load of horseshit. I have to admit either possibility.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERSI 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?
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.
Actually, it's related, but you're ultimately right, it's not the point at all. The ontological argument is an indirect, evidentiary argument that supports God's existence, but it's not what matters here. The TAG proves God's existence directly. That's the only argument that matters conclusively. The rest is just properly understanding the difference between science and logic.
I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERSI 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?
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.
Well, like I said, I don't really get what "The Five Awesome Things" have to do with any goddamned thing.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
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.
Pretty cool, eh? I was just there last year! First time I ever saw it in my life. Something always came up . . . .but finally I got there. Only, somebody actually died while I was there. Geez whiz. Slipped and fell.
Justin Davis
Senior Member
- Sep 21, 2014
- 791
- 163
- 45
"Punk"
I wanna fight you!! Grrrrr!!!!
These are the sounds of your snake oil infused house of cards falling. You're welcome.
Hey, punk, stop making up your own definitions and then calling other people stupid because they know your definitions are dog shit, punk. Stop playing word games, punk, and then when caught talking dog shit, punk, blaming those telling you the truth about your dog shit, punk. Use the right words for science, punk. Stop pretending that your dog shit always means the same thing in science when it doesn't, punk. Stop putting dog shit into syllogisms that aren't there and then claiming to have proved things not proved, punk. Stop making arguments against something you claim doesn't matter, punk, and then turn around and say you don't have to refute it, punk. So why did you try to refute it in the first place, punk? Nobody asked you in the first place, punk. Nobody with two cents cares what you think, punk, because nothing you ever say it true, punk. If you were on my crew I couldn't trust you with any job, punk, because you're liar, punk. You lie about everything, punk.
Justin Davis
Senior Member
- Sep 21, 2014
- 791
- 163
- 45
Meltdown ^^^°
You're the one who melted down with all your dog shit. Logic and knowledge are descriptors? (meltdown) Logic and knowledge describe things? (meltdown) Disprove is the right scientific term? (meltdown) Disprove always means the same thing? (meltdown) And don't say you didn't imply that, meltdown, when you called people idiots for telling you that's the wrong word, meltdown. Things can exist without humans means things can exist without God. (meltdown) Calling people liars and idiots because of your dog shit? (meltdown) Take your dog shit and go home, meltdown. You're just one big meltdown, punk.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERSI 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?
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.
Hey - full disclosure: this TAG thing makes NO sense to me, so I'm not even pretending to understand it. Either I'm too stupid, or it's a load of horseshit. I have to admit either possibility.
Just know this it is true for now. I'm going to get to it in detail as soon as I address the rest of Emily's concerns. Everything I'm talking about is objectively self-evident, just like the five things. It's an axiom, just like 2+2=4, though it's a little more complex, but not by much. It's self-evident. It cannot be denied or refuted, and it doesn't beg the question. Things that are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically true, don't beg the question. They are simply true automatically, by necessity! Human logic simply doesn't let us say God doesn't exist without contradicting ourselves or violating the laws of thought. Period.
G.T.'s nonsense about axioms, things that are intuitively true, needing any more substantiation is just stupid. 2+2=4 doesn't need any more substantiation from outside of our minds, and the TAG is the very same kind of axiom! It's just true, and any argument that attempts to disprove it will actually prove it to be true or will agree with it in some way. Period. End of thought. Numbers and mathematical axioms don't exist outside our minds. They're not hanging off of trees. They're just true. So is the TAG in the very same kind of way.
I'm not lying to you. See these links on the historical and academic facts about it.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10014560/
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
I don't try to 'refute' it. Dipshit. I never once said its first premise is not true, I said its not.proven so it can't be USED as a proof. Try and keep up.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.
Cheerleader.
Figures you're a fuckin plumber the way you stroke md's pipe for him.
It is proven logically because it's an axiom. That's what axioms are! They are axiomatic proofs, as they are necessarily and inherently true logically. Making up your own definitions again? And you did try to refute it several times now, all failures. Academia has held this to be true for centuries. It's self-evident. No peer-reviewed scholar of academia denies this, and no peer-reviewed scholar of academia stupidly believes it formally begs the question. But you already knew that, pathological liar, because you read these posts:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 106 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .
As I have shown in my previous posts with regard to the incontrovertible axiom of the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG), expressed either as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the universality of the principle of identity: your contention "that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge can NEVER be proven or disproven" has been falsified since time immemorial", as peer-reviewed academia knows. Nothing from your post in the above is logically true. These notions of yours are taken from the pages of post-modern popular culture. They are in fact the gibberish of materialistic subjectivism and epistemological relativism. You're an absolutist and a proponent of classical liberalism, not an irrationalist and a statist, right? Now, hopefully, from here on out, you will still be the former like me from premise to conclusion.
Actually, the principle of identity readily allows us to comprehend the concept of infinity with no sweat at all, as any given A of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict. If this were not so, we could not coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness. It doesn't matter that our finite minds could never possibly comprehend the entirety of what an entity of infinitely unparalleled greatness would entail. We can comprehend that the only restriction that would logically prevail upon such an entity would be for that entity to become something other than what it is, i.e., become something it's not:
Also, we readily understand that any given A (or whole) may be divided without end.
Comprehensively, the laws of organic/classical thought constitute the universally organic principle of identity: (1) the discrete law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (or third). The reason we apprehend a universally comprehensive principle existing above these fundamental laws of human thought collectively, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, is because the first law of thought is foundational and the second and third laws of thought are in actuality elaborations on the first. Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as infinity, eternity, perfection, absoluteness, ultimacy. . . .
For our purposes we need only to emphatically established the essence of the law of identity: A: A = A, which means that for any given entity (rational or material), that entity is what it is, as opposed to being something it's not.
Note that we may readily see from this that two distinct entities/propositions that are diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive cannot both be true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference (the law of contraction), and it is not possible for there to be a middle (or third) option that would negate the first or second laws (the law of the excluded middle). So the second and the third laws are actually contained in the first!
Cutting to the chase:
Note: infinity is a complex A (or whole) of a single predicate that is what it is.
That's what infinity means conceptually, and its mathematical proof is most easily understood as a function of division in calculus, which renders inversely corresponding sets of inputs and outputs of values approaching infinity and zero, respectively (See Post #2359).
Absolute logical consistency via unbiased objectivity reveals the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of materialistic subjectivism/relativism, which routinely presuppose that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't be real, materially or immaterially, simply because at any given moment it's substance may only be known to coherently exist as a rational intuition. The question is not, do we or do we not have direct evidence of actual existents that correspond with the constructs in our minds, but whether or not the construct in our minds is logically coherent. If it's logically coherent, it's possible for it to exist outside of our minds.
Among the first axioms of classical, constructive and modal logic is that anything that's coherently conceivable/possible, necessarily exists in our minds, and in classical and modal logic, it necessarily exists beyond our minds for complex reasons that I won't get into here. (Note: the only exception to this rule, at least initially, is when the negative is assumed on the test basis of rational skepticism in order to uncover any potential contradictions in complex postulates or theorems.)
However, the actual objects or constituents of transcendent propositions (as distinguished from the issue of logical coherency) can only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in the absence of an inhabited proof of direct evidence in constructive logic and in science. (Note: in this case the term proof goes to the controlling foundation for science, i.e., the logical categories of ontology, not to the conventions of science, which are contingent on the former. In other words, the logic of metaphysics tells science what it can legitimately do and what it can't do. The inferences of science are limited to the substances of sensory data.)
Notwithstanding, ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only fanatically closed-minded, question-begging dogmatists limit the application of organic logic to empirical entities, disregard the implications of mathematically demonstrable constructs like perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . as premised on the construct of infinity, and confine the principle of identity and the logical proofs thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality.
This attitude not only stifles the natural flow of rational discourse, but circumvents the process of disclosing the legitimate avenues of scientific discourse. In other words, if we were to bind the logical concerns of human cognition to the conventions of science, as some have proposed unaware as to what that would actually mean in reality, we would not only destroy the foundation for science itself as we arbitrarily reduced the intuitive range of human apprehensive, we would reduce the range of scientific inquiry!
Besides, we know about things of a single predicate that can occupy up to an infinite number of locations simultaneously (subatomic particles, like electrons and photons) without contradiction, and we know about lots or things of a single predicate that exist as distinctly two or more things, albeit, simultaneously as one and the same thing without contradiction, in the material realm of being: three-dimensional space, electromagnetic radiation, the Majorana fermion, magnetic poles. . . . In truth, virtually everything that exists of a single predicate is comprised of two or more things simultaneously, our bodies as a whole, for example, or any given part of our bodies, all the way down to the subatomic level: the principle of division rendering ever-smaller wholes of a single predicate.
The conceptualizations of perfection, infinity and eternity (or concepts like ultimacy and absoluteness) are apprehensible and logically coherent, and they may be readily demonstrated as such in linguistic or mathematical terms. As these concepts are objectively and universally understood via the delineations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, as premised on the principle of identity: they are axioms assigned a truth value in all forms of logic. In short, because they are objectively and universally understood, their conceptualizations are justifiably held to exist.
Dear GT and MD:
1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
can NEVER be proven or disproven.
So this is impossible.
The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
NOR
neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
As I have shown in my previous posts with regard to the incontrovertible axiom of the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG), expressed either as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the universality of the principle of identity: your contention "that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge can NEVER be proven or disproven" has been falsified since time immemorial", as peer-reviewed academia knows. Nothing from your post in the above is logically true. These notions of yours are taken from the pages of post-modern popular culture. They are in fact the gibberish of materialistic subjectivism and epistemological relativism. You're an absolutist and a proponent of classical liberalism, not an irrationalist and a statist, right? Now, hopefully, from here on out, you will still be the former like me from premise to conclusion.
Actually, the principle of identity readily allows us to comprehend the concept of infinity with no sweat at all, as any given A of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict. If this were not so, we could not coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness. It doesn't matter that our finite minds could never possibly comprehend the entirety of what an entity of infinitely unparalleled greatness would entail. We can comprehend that the only restriction that would logically prevail upon such an entity would be for that entity to become something other than what it is, i.e., become something it's not:
A = A; A ≠ B.
Also, we readily understand that any given A (or whole) may be divided without end.
Comprehensively, the laws of organic/classical thought constitute the universally organic principle of identity: (1) the discrete law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (or third). The reason we apprehend a universally comprehensive principle existing above these fundamental laws of human thought collectively, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, is because the first law of thought is foundational and the second and third laws of thought are in actuality elaborations on the first. Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as infinity, eternity, perfection, absoluteness, ultimacy. . . .
For our purposes we need only to emphatically established the essence of the law of identity: A: A = A, which means that for any given entity (rational or material), that entity is what it is, as opposed to being something it's not.
Note that we may readily see from this that two distinct entities/propositions that are diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive cannot both be true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference (the law of contraction), and it is not possible for there to be a middle (or third) option that would negate the first or second laws (the law of the excluded middle). So the second and the third laws are actually contained in the first!
Cutting to the chase:
Let I = Infinity.
A: A = A = I = (all the numbers—natural, rational, irrational, integers, complex, hypercomplex—that exist simultaneously), or = (all existents or potential existents that exist simultaneously).
A: A = A = I = (all the numbers—natural, rational, irrational, integers, complex, hypercomplex—that exist simultaneously), or = (all existents or potential existents that exist simultaneously).
Note: infinity is a complex A (or whole) of a single predicate that is what it is.
That's what infinity means conceptually, and its mathematical proof is most easily understood as a function of division in calculus, which renders inversely corresponding sets of inputs and outputs of values approaching infinity and zero, respectively (See Post #2359).
Absolute logical consistency via unbiased objectivity reveals the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of materialistic subjectivism/relativism, which routinely presuppose that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't be real, materially or immaterially, simply because at any given moment it's substance may only be known to coherently exist as a rational intuition. The question is not, do we or do we not have direct evidence of actual existents that correspond with the constructs in our minds, but whether or not the construct in our minds is logically coherent. If it's logically coherent, it's possible for it to exist outside of our minds.
Among the first axioms of classical, constructive and modal logic is that anything that's coherently conceivable/possible, necessarily exists in our minds, and in classical and modal logic, it necessarily exists beyond our minds for complex reasons that I won't get into here. (Note: the only exception to this rule, at least initially, is when the negative is assumed on the test basis of rational skepticism in order to uncover any potential contradictions in complex postulates or theorems.)
However, the actual objects or constituents of transcendent propositions (as distinguished from the issue of logical coherency) can only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in the absence of an inhabited proof of direct evidence in constructive logic and in science. (Note: in this case the term proof goes to the controlling foundation for science, i.e., the logical categories of ontology, not to the conventions of science, which are contingent on the former. In other words, the logic of metaphysics tells science what it can legitimately do and what it can't do. The inferences of science are limited to the substances of sensory data.)
Notwithstanding, ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only fanatically closed-minded, question-begging dogmatists limit the application of organic logic to empirical entities, disregard the implications of mathematically demonstrable constructs like perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . as premised on the construct of infinity, and confine the principle of identity and the logical proofs thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality.
This attitude not only stifles the natural flow of rational discourse, but circumvents the process of disclosing the legitimate avenues of scientific discourse. In other words, if we were to bind the logical concerns of human cognition to the conventions of science, as some have proposed unaware as to what that would actually mean in reality, we would not only destroy the foundation for science itself as we arbitrarily reduced the intuitive range of human apprehensive, we would reduce the range of scientific inquiry!
Besides, we know about things of a single predicate that can occupy up to an infinite number of locations simultaneously (subatomic particles, like electrons and photons) without contradiction, and we know about lots or things of a single predicate that exist as distinctly two or more things, albeit, simultaneously as one and the same thing without contradiction, in the material realm of being: three-dimensional space, electromagnetic radiation, the Majorana fermion, magnetic poles. . . . In truth, virtually everything that exists of a single predicate is comprised of two or more things simultaneously, our bodies as a whole, for example, or any given part of our bodies, all the way down to the subatomic level: the principle of division rendering ever-smaller wholes of a single predicate.
The conceptualizations of perfection, infinity and eternity (or concepts like ultimacy and absoluteness) are apprehensible and logically coherent, and they may be readily demonstrated as such in linguistic or mathematical terms. As these concepts are objectively and universally understood via the delineations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, as premised on the principle of identity: they are axioms assigned a truth value in all forms of logic. In short, because they are objectively and universally understood, their conceptualizations are justifiably held to exist.
Last edited:
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
f (x) = lim (1/x) = 0.
x --> ∞
This means that the function f systematically increases the value of x toward the limit of infinity, so that 1 is divided by the systematically increased value of x, which equals an ever-smaller number approaching 0. This function yields an infinite set of increasingly larger numbers (or divisors) for x tending toward ∞ and an infinite set of ever-smaller numbers (or quotients) approaching 0. In other words, = 0 actually means "near 0" as the division of any whole is not the process of making it fade into nonexistent. The whole is still "there." It's just divided into an unknown number of pieces. We don't actually know what happens when we get to infinity as infinity in terms of a specific number is undefined. Rather, infinity is simultaneously all the numbers there are unto infinity.
Hence, the input-output portion of the function's expression can be expressed as "(1/x) = n approaching 0."
Let D = the infinite set of increasingly larger divisors x --> ∞ of function f.
Let Q = the infinite set of ever-smaller quotients approaching 0 of function f.
Thus, for example:
lim
x --> ∞ ∈ D
___________
1
10
100
1000 . . .
(1/x = n approaching 0) ∈ Q
___________________________________
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001 . . .
Also:
D = {1, 10, 100, 1000 . . . }; Q = {1.0, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001 . . . }
x --> ∞
This means that the function f systematically increases the value of x toward the limit of infinity, so that 1 is divided by the systematically increased value of x, which equals an ever-smaller number approaching 0. This function yields an infinite set of increasingly larger numbers (or divisors) for x tending toward ∞ and an infinite set of ever-smaller numbers (or quotients) approaching 0. In other words, = 0 actually means "near 0" as the division of any whole is not the process of making it fade into nonexistent. The whole is still "there." It's just divided into an unknown number of pieces. We don't actually know what happens when we get to infinity as infinity in terms of a specific number is undefined. Rather, infinity is simultaneously all the numbers there are unto infinity.
Hence, the input-output portion of the function's expression can be expressed as "(1/x) = n approaching 0."
Let D = the infinite set of increasingly larger divisors x --> ∞ of function f.
Let Q = the infinite set of ever-smaller quotients approaching 0 of function f.
Thus, for example:
lim
x --> ∞ ∈ D
___________
1
10
100
1000 . . .
(1/x = n approaching 0) ∈ Q
___________________________________
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001 . . .
Also:
D = {1, 10, 100, 1000 . . . }; Q = {1.0, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001 . . . }
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.
You internet tough-guys / fundie zealots / Pom Pom flailers are so cute with your chest-heaving tirades.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 434
- Views
- 7K
- Replies
- 81
- Views
- 42K
- Replies
- 189
- Views
- 12K
D
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 417
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 104
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 20
- Replies
- 59
- Views
- 151
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8110
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-