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

[dblack]

So, it sounds like the essence of TAG is that it isn't a proof of God's existence so much as an appeal to accept it as an axiom.

Always trying to miss the point, rather than grasp the fact first and then get the point, right? You do accept that 2+2=4 is true, don't you? So why based on the same standard of logic that you accept that as being true, all of the sudden, another axiom just like it from the same standard of logic is something that can just be dismissed as trivial? The fact of the matter is that until now, though you apparently still won't think it through for yourself and see it, you were not even aware of the fact that such an axiom existed. You thought all the arguments were indirect and evidentiary. Yep. Deeply embedded emotions that won't let you be objectively sound in your thinking.

Maybe. I accept 2 + 2 = 4 as an axiom because every time I have two, and get two more, and count them up, I have four. But as far as gods, well first of all, which god? What claims are you making about this god? That he exists as a concept in your mind? I believe you. That he created the universe? Like I said, I suppose it's possible, but it's certainly not self-evident or obvious. Nothing I can justify accepting as an obvious axiom.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So this ties into #4 as the avoidance of begging the question?

Basically, yes. I'll get to that tomorrow in conclusion then hit the TAG . . . again.

Though it's beyond me as to why folks can't see something so simple, that saying knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists. And if one tries to leave the term Creator out of one's statement in order to avoid that problem by saying, for example: "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist; however, the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically ruled out. . . ." Oops.

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in way or another in their statement/assertion.

 

[dblack]

So this ties into #4 as the avoidance of begging the question?

Basically, yes. I'll get to that tomorrow in conclusion then hit the TAG . . . again.

Though it's beyond me as to why folks can't see something so simple, that saying knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists. And if one tries to leave the term Creator out of one's statement in order to avoid that problem by saying, for example: "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist; however, the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically ruled out. . . ." Oops.

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in way or another in their statement/assertion.

Which god?

 

[Justin Davis]

So, it sounds like the essence of TAG is that it isn't a proof of God's existence so much as an appeal to accept it as an axiom.

Always trying to miss the point, rather than grasp the fact first and then get the point, right? You do accept that 2+2=4 is true, don't you? So why based on the same standard of logic that you accept that as being true, all of the sudden, another axiom just like it from the same standard of logic is something that can just be dismissed as trivial? The fact of the matter is that until now, though you apparently still won't think it through for yourself and see it, you were not even aware of the fact that such an axiom existed. You thought all the arguments were indirect and evidentiary. Yep. Deeply embedded emotions that won't let you be objectively sound in your thinking.

Maybe. I accept 2 + 2 = 4 as an axiom because every time I have two, and get two more, and count them up, I have four. But as far as gods, well first of all, which god? What claims are you making about this god? That he exists as a concept in your mind? I believe you. That he created the universe? Like I said, I suppose it's possible, but it's certainly not self-evident or obvious. Nothing I can justify accepting as an obvious axiom.

The idea of God that's in you're mind, that's what God. What claims are making about the idea of God in you're mind?

"Like I said, I suppose it's possible."

You know it's possible. You can't logically rule His existence out, and you know that. You can't logically say that anything could exist without Him existing either, and you know that.

"It's certainly not self-evident or obvious."

You just conceded that God's existence can't be logically ruled out, and that's obviously self-evident to you in your mind.

"Nothing I can justify accepting as an obvious axiom."

You spoke to soon again. "Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in way or another in their statement/assertion" (Rawlings).

 

[Justin Davis]

Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .

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).​

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.

Anyone else here make any sense out of that?

Of course. You don't understand the mathematical and scientific examples that prove the points? Really?

Law of thought - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Justin Davis]

.
they either are afraid to put their logic in perspective in regards to Christianity or they simply know it is a false religion.

.

You got the first part right, and Christianity is not issue.

.
really, a generic God is your goal ?

.

Why do you get all hung up on what might be and not just objectively see what is generally true about the issues of origin, the concepts of the universal laws of thought as they are without bias? He's even given established mathematical expressions of it all. Man alive. Just open your eyes. These ideas are not subjective. They're objective and belong to us all.

it remains for you to decipher what the issue of your "argument" accomplishes, that is if you believe your conclusions have a relevancy for a practical application - religion.

as others have requested, take us to the next level ....

.

Nonsense. It's not my business to tell you which religion, if any, is the true religion of God. But I can tell you this, every one of the objectively obvious facts in our minds about God and about the issues of existence and origin are listed in the Bible and are listed as being in our minds just so.

 

[Justin Davis]

Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.

The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
much less any proof using these finite human means.

If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.

I have already proven that the concept of infinity as such coherently exists in our minds, and from this we know that any given existent of a single predicate, rational or material, may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without contradiction. Hence, substantive existents beyond our minds that are infinitely perfect, infinity eternal, infinity ultimate, infinity absolute . . . can and may exist. That is proven by logic. At the very least, these axioms or logical proofs for these potentialities do objectively exist as such in their own right in our minds, and the hypotheses that the cosmological order, in some state of being or another, may be (1) eternal and/or (2) spatially infinite are scientifically verifiable, and scientists are working on these very problems right now. And this is a perfect example of why pseudoscientific ninnies like Hollie are wrong about the relationship between philosophy and science, between logic and science, as to which has primacy/precedes the other, and why we don't limit logic to the conventions of science, as otherwise we'd be imagining that something that can in fact be explored by science couldn't be!

Further, this is why we shouldn't be careless with the distinction between what logic does and what science does in terms of proving or disproving things, verifying or falsifying things. This is why we shouldn't use these terms carelessly. Logic proves or disproves things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic tell us what science can do and what it can't do. Moreover, we, via the recommendations of logic, define the parameters of science. We interpret the data. We delineate the data. We contrive/intuit hypotheses. We infer/extrapolate theories. We do these things. Science is the stuff of methodology, not agency.

In fact, we even know what kind of an expanding universe would be infinite. Think in terms of a "flat" universe, albeit, on a three-dimensional plain of a linearly infinite expanse, which is what we currently believe to be the case based on what we can make out about the visible universe from our terrestrial perspective.

We can't explore things in terms of infinity or eternity in science, either theoretically or in actuality? Nonsense! Of course we can, and we know we can because the logical principle of identity tells us we can.

Hence, it's not accurate to say that such things do not exist or cannot be proven to exist, as such things do in fact coherently exist as constructs in our minds and outside of our minds; rather, such things that are transcendent in nature cannot currently be verified to exist by science, and that does not mean that they cannot ever be verified to exist by science. There is nothing that could stop God from revealing Himself to the world in such a way that His existence would thereafter be scientifically verified, and the proper way to think about these kinds of things is that while we could never comprehensively grasp the entirety of their transcendent expressions, we can and to coherently apprehend them as we intuitively comprehend what the only logical constraint on their expression would be: A = A; A ≠ B.

Hence, we cannot say that anything that is logically possibly cannot be proven or disproven to exist. Anything that is logically possibly is already proven to exist, at the very least, as a construct in our minds. Anything that logically exists in our minds can exist outside of our minds.

It is logic that proves or disproves things, not science!

Science merely affirms things in terms of verification or falsification on the basis of sensory perception or on the basis of the empirical extrapolations/inferences thereof, and any given thing that is not currently subject to scientific verification or falsification, is not necessarily constrained to the materially indirect expressions of itself.

Ultimately, it is the objectively derived conclusions of human consciousness as premised on the unlimited potentialities of logical coherence that keeps the doors wide open for scientific inquiry and discovery, not the preconceived notions of materialistic subjectivity and the epistemological relativism that invariably follows. In other words, contrary to what relativists tell themselves, it's the clarity and coherency of epistemological absolutism that actually divulges the infinitely complex realities/potentialities of existence without bias.


We don't need to count to infinity in order to logically prove/know what infinity is. Infinity is not a number; rather, it's all the numbers there are simultaneously. We don't need to divide a whole unto infinity in order to prove/know what it means to divide a whole unto infinity or in order to prove/know that dividing a whole unto infinity can theoretically be done: the process of dividing a whole unto infinity is an eternal process. It never ends! Eternity divulges the essence of absolute perfection: an eternally self-subsistent entity, contingent on no other thing. Hence, all of these things are in fact in our minds as coherent constructs, comprehensively understood in terms of their identity.

As for proving the existence of an eternally self-subsistent entity of infinite perfection: this construct exists in our minds as the necessary ground of all other existents, and in organic/classical logic, the three laws of biologically hardwired thought, as I have shown, the proposition regarding the existence of this necessary entity is an incontrovertible axiom of identity that cannot be logically denied or refuted. If it (God) doesn't ultimately exist outside of our minds, it's not because the idea is irrational. That's for damn sure! On the contrary, it seems that it would be awfully strange for this idea to be in our heads, as it is, not only as a possibility that cannot be logically eliminated, but also as an incontrovertible axiom, the very same kind of axiom as 2 + 2 = 4, if God didn't exist.

I've noticed the boy has been reduced to cutting and pasting the same inane comments across multiple pages.

It seems he's having a war with coherent sentence structure the way Al Sharpton is having a war with the teleprompter.

Al Sharpton Versus The Teleprompter Volume 1 Washington Free Beacon

I've noticed the little girl in pigtails with a snotty attitude about everything who never knows what she's talking about when it comes to science or philosophy or logic or much of anything else, and never makes a direct comment or argument about anything, just insults and lies. She needs to go stand in the corner and be quite while the adults talk.

 

[Foxfyre]

Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .

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).​

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.

Anyone else here make any sense out of that?

The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.

 

[Hollie]

Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .

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).​

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.

Anyone else here make any sense out of that?

Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .

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).​

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.

Anyone else here make any sense out of that?

Nope. It was just as confused and muddled as most of his saliva-slinging tirades

What is confused and muddled? Put something into evidence with a coherent argument so that we may know who's really confused or muddled, as so far it's always been you. Otherwise, your comment is irresponsible.

What is confused and muddled is your attempt to portray a viciously circular argument, your silly TAG argument, as a pwoof of your gods. You then go on to increase the depth of that fraud by refusing to acknowledge that your pointless TAG argument, at least as you configure it, can be used to "pwoove" every other conception of gawds.

What's laughable is that you rattle on with your stuttering and mumbling requiring that I "put something into evidence". How remarkable. It is you making the positive assertion of supernatural gawds. It thus falls to you to "put something into evidence". Obviously you cannot.

Don't be too hard on yourself for your failure to meet the standard you insist must apply to others but which you exempt yourself from. This is typical behavior from religious zealots and you are just typical as religious zealots go.

 

[Hollie]

Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.

The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
much less any proof using these finite human means.

If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.

I have already proven that the concept of infinity as such coherently exists in our minds, and from this we know that any given existent of a single predicate, rational or material, may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without contradiction. Hence, substantive existents beyond our minds that are infinitely perfect, infinity eternal, infinity ultimate, infinity absolute . . . can and may exist. That is proven by logic. At the very least, these axioms or logical proofs for these potentialities do objectively exist as such in their own right in our minds, and the hypotheses that the cosmological order, in some state of being or another, may be (1) eternal and/or (2) spatially infinite are scientifically verifiable, and scientists are working on these very problems right now. And this is a perfect example of why pseudoscientific ninnies like Hollie are wrong about the relationship between philosophy and science, between logic and science, as to which has primacy/precedes the other, and why we don't limit logic to the conventions of science, as otherwise we'd be imagining that something that can in fact be explored by science couldn't be!

Further, this is why we shouldn't be careless with the distinction between what logic does and what science does in terms of proving or disproving things, verifying or falsifying things. This is why we shouldn't use these terms carelessly. Logic proves or disproves things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic tell us what science can do and what it can't do. Moreover, we, via the recommendations of logic, define the parameters of science. We interpret the data. We delineate the data. We contrive/intuit hypotheses. We infer/extrapolate theories. We do these things. Science is the stuff of methodology, not agency.

In fact, we even know what kind of an expanding universe would be infinite. Think in terms of a "flat" universe, albeit, on a three-dimensional plain of a linearly infinite expanse, which is what we currently believe to be the case based on what we can make out about the visible universe from our terrestrial perspective.

We can't explore things in terms of infinity or eternity in science, either theoretically or in actuality? Nonsense! Of course we can, and we know we can because the logical principle of identity tells us we can.

Hence, it's not accurate to say that such things do not exist or cannot be proven to exist, as such things do in fact coherently exist as constructs in our minds and outside of our minds; rather, such things that are transcendent in nature cannot currently be verified to exist by science, and that does not mean that they cannot ever be verified to exist by science. There is nothing that could stop God from revealing Himself to the world in such a way that His existence would thereafter be scientifically verified, and the proper way to think about these kinds of things is that while we could never comprehensively grasp the entirety of their transcendent expressions, we can and to coherently apprehend them as we intuitively comprehend what the only logical constraint on their expression would be: A = A; A ≠ B.

Hence, we cannot say that anything that is logically possibly cannot be proven or disproven to exist. Anything that is logically possibly is already proven to exist, at the very least, as a construct in our minds. Anything that logically exists in our minds can exist outside of our minds.

It is logic that proves or disproves things, not science!

Science merely affirms things in terms of verification or falsification on the basis of sensory perception or on the basis of the empirical extrapolations/inferences thereof, and any given thing that is not currently subject to scientific verification or falsification, is not necessarily constrained to the materially indirect expressions of itself.

Ultimately, it is the objectively derived conclusions of human consciousness as premised on the unlimited potentialities of logical coherence that keeps the doors wide open for scientific inquiry and discovery, not the preconceived notions of materialistic subjectivity and the epistemological relativism that invariably follows. In other words, contrary to what relativists tell themselves, it's the clarity and coherency of epistemological absolutism that actually divulges the infinitely complex realities/potentialities of existence without bias.


We don't need to count to infinity in order to logically prove/know what infinity is. Infinity is not a number; rather, it's all the numbers there are simultaneously. We don't need to divide a whole unto infinity in order to prove/know what it means to divide a whole unto infinity or in order to prove/know that dividing a whole unto infinity can theoretically be done: the process of dividing a whole unto infinity is an eternal process. It never ends! Eternity divulges the essence of absolute perfection: an eternally self-subsistent entity, contingent on no other thing. Hence, all of these things are in fact in our minds as coherent constructs, comprehensively understood in terms of their identity.

As for proving the existence of an eternally self-subsistent entity of infinite perfection: this construct exists in our minds as the necessary ground of all other existents, and in organic/classical logic, the three laws of biologically hardwired thought, as I have shown, the proposition regarding the existence of this necessary entity is an incontrovertible axiom of identity that cannot be logically denied or refuted. If it (God) doesn't ultimately exist outside of our minds, it's not because the idea is irrational. That's for damn sure! On the contrary, it seems that it would be awfully strange for this idea to be in our heads, as it is, not only as a possibility that cannot be logically eliminated, but also as an incontrovertible axiom, the very same kind of axiom as 2 + 2 = 4, if God didn't exist.

I've noticed the boy has been reduced to cutting and pasting the same inane comments across multiple pages.

It seems he's having a war with coherent sentence structure the way Al Sharpton is having a war with the teleprompter.

Al Sharpton Versus The Teleprompter Volume 1 Washington Free Beacon

I've noticed the little girl in pigtails with a snotty attitude about everything who never knows what she's talking about when it comes to science or philosophy or logic or much of anything else, and never makes a direct comment or argument about anything, just insults and lies. She needs to go stand in the corner and be quite while the adults talk.

Oh, you poor dear. You take offense at a little girl pointing out just how bankrupt, circular and self-refuting your attempt at argument is. You feel emasculated? Your tirade suggests so. Rather than just sit at the sidelines and flail your Pom Poms for the silliness that Rawling gushes out, support your attempt at pwoof of the gods with something more than bluster and the comical chest-heaving internet tough guy nonsense.

While you do recognize that the postulation of your gods raises paradoxes, you don’t seem to understand that reason and rationality is the only mechanism available to recognize and to address the paradoxes. The truly twisted "logic" that you hope to use in the postulation of your gods is pointless and time wasting. Your absurd attempts at "logic" to "pwoove" the supernatural is itself a paradox. Is there a supernatural logic that we can access to address supernatural paradoxes?

The truly pitiable part of your ideological cowardice is that you require an unsolvable paradox to exist because that relieves you of the burdensome task of taking responsibility for actually presenting a workable, verifiable model of existence that in any way requires supernaturalism. It requires you to abdicate reason in the face of fear. Any gods who reward fear over reason are not worthy of worship.

 

[G.T.]

I can't believe Mr I am the pro super duper logic has no fucking clue what an axiom is.

No wonder he thinks tag holds. Gullible prick.

 

[dblack]

So, it sounds like the essence of TAG is that it isn't a proof of God's existence so much as an appeal to accept it as an axiom.

Always trying to miss the point, rather than grasp the fact first and then get the point, right? You do accept that 2+2=4 is true, don't you? So why based on the same standard of logic that you accept that as being true, all of the sudden, another axiom just like it from the same standard of logic is something that can just be dismissed as trivial? The fact of the matter is that until now, though you apparently still won't think it through for yourself and see it, you were not even aware of the fact that such an axiom existed. You thought all the arguments were indirect and evidentiary. Yep. Deeply embedded emotions that won't let you be objectively sound in your thinking.

Maybe. I accept 2 + 2 = 4 as an axiom because every time I have two, and get two more, and count them up, I have four. But as far as gods, well first of all, which god? What claims are you making about this god? That he exists as a concept in your mind? I believe you. That he created the universe? Like I said, I suppose it's possible, but it's certainly not self-evident or obvious. Nothing I can justify accepting as an obvious axiom.

The idea of God that's in you're mind, that's what God. What claims are making about the idea of God in you're mind?

Certainly nothing like you and Rawlings are. Where does that leave us?

"Like I said, I suppose it's possible."

You know it's possible. You can't logically rule His existence out, and you know that. You can't logically say that anything could exist without Him existing either, and you know that.

I can, actually and logically, say that about the idea of god that's in my mind. Are you pretending to know the nature of my private conception of a god I've never described to you?

 

[Hollie]

.
they either are afraid to put their logic in perspective in regards to Christianity or they simply know it is a false religion.

.

You got the first part right, and Christianity is not issue.

.
really, a generic God is your goal ?

.

Why do you get all hung up on what might be and not just objectively see what is generally true about the issues of origin, the concepts of the universal laws of thought as they are without bias? He's even given established mathematical expressions of it all. Man alive. Just open your eyes. These ideas are not subjective. They're objective and belong to us all.

it remains for you to decipher what the issue of your "argument" accomplishes, that is if you believe your conclusions have a relevancy for a practical application - religion.

as others have requested, take us to the next level ....

.

Nonsense. It's not my business to tell you which religion, if any, is the true religion of God. But I can tell you this, every one of the objectively obvious facts in our minds about God and about the issues of existence and origin are listed in the Bible and are listed as being in our minds just so.

The question remains: which god?

It's obvious that your silly attempts at pwoofs of the gods are directed at pwoofing your sectarian gods but your gods are only three among many human conceptions of gods.

 

[Justin Davis]

The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.

Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.

 

[G.T.]

pseudo zealot definition of axiom: ""Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in way or another in their statement/assertion" (Rawlings)."

Real:

As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.



Of COURSE there's fucking controversy with calling God the source of all knowledge. If there wasn't, these threads and non-religious people and the need for proof.......................WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST.

More derp derp logic.

 

[Justin Davis]

I can, actually and logically, say that about the idea of god that's in my mind. Are you pretending to know the nature of my private conception of a god I've never described to you?

You can logically rule out a transcendently divine origin of uncaused Cause? That would be a first. Let's have it. I don't have to pretend. No matter what you propose, the idea of God is ultimately the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin, which I picked up from Rawlings way early on this thread and studied in detail, another universal that once you see you can never get away from. I got it now and understand why he listed it among "the fundamental imperatives of the problem of origin." These are actually the foundation for the five things you've already agree to. I'm getting pretty good this. These things are universally objective. I can read your mind as these same things are in mine, just latent in yours. But they're there.

 

[Justin Davis]

I can't believe Mr I am the pro super duper logic has no fucking clue what an axiom is.

No wonder he thinks tag holds. Gullible prick.

Right. He doesn't know what an axiom is. Did you say something about being gullible. That would be you.

 

[G.T.]

I can't believe Mr I am the pro super duper logic has no fucking clue what an axiom is.

No wonder he thinks tag holds. Gullible prick.

Right. He doesn't know what an axiom is. Did you say something about being gullible. That would be you.

Go fix a p trap and do me a favor.

Write out the script of the "Tag" argument.

Light it on fire.

Shoot it down a 4" soil pipe. See if anything happens.

 

[Justin Davis]

pseudo zealot definition of axiom: ""Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in way or another in their statement/assertion" (Rawlings)."

Real:

As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.



Of COURSE there's fucking controversy with calling God the source of all knowledge. If there wasn't, these threads and non-religious people and the need for proof.......................WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST.

More derp derp logic.

There is no controversy about its actual nature, and you can't refute it, derp derp. You just keep deluding yourself as you somehow lose track of its logical nature.

 

[G.T.]

pseudo zealot definition of axiom: ""Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in way or another in their statement/assertion" (Rawlings)."

Real:

As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.



Of COURSE there's fucking controversy with calling God the source of all knowledge. If there wasn't, these threads and non-religious people and the need for proof.......................WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST.

More derp derp logic.

There is no controversy about its actual nature, and you can't refute it, derp derp. You just keep deluding yourself as you somehow lose track of its logical nature.

"refute" =/= point out that it isn't proven, in any sense.

Which it isn't, which is why it's not an axiom, IN ANY SENSE.

There is controversy about its nature: in that god isn't proven therefore god can't be said to be the source of all knowledge.

NHopefully this helps, I know you like it more fancified with word salad like MD typically does for you, but it doesn't get much more simple as a concept.

You still wanna fight, boo?