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

[CrusaderFrank]

The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.

That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us

 

[G.T.]

The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.

That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us

It defied the actual definition of miracle.

It's happening in nature, every day. Miracles by definition are not natural.

Also - there's likely millions of planets out there in this same goldilocks zone. The more common we discover that it is, the l;ess "special" it is as a natural occurrence. Do you forget how much of the universe we can't even see or explore yet? That's: 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999^infinity-power.

 

[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.

"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?

Look, punk, you've been refuted on this point every which way and Sunday. You've tried over and over again to refute and have failed every time. You're a punk. That's all.

 

[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?

Look, punk, you've been refuted on this point every which way and Sunday. You've tried over and over again to refute and have failed every time. You're a punk. That's all.

Well, that's YOUR problem.

The lofty attempts at "refuting" me have been empty, and you fall for it everytime like a fan/fuck boy, but we all can't help how badly you're squeezing md's nootsook.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

Well, you know what they say about the thoughtlessly gullible. . . .

No. It was actually QW who pulled on your leg, with the most patently risible bilge regarding the various forms of logic and their conventions, and the relationship between philosophy and science. Well, actually, not quite, after all, we can always count on Hollie to be more insane than the average lunatic.

But I know you don't approve of such remarks. Yours are more subtly offensive by way of their thoughtlessness, which is rather bizarre, really, given that you're an absolutist of sorts and that the things I'm sharing are universally objective and, therefore, belong to all of us.

The logical principle of identity is not universal?! So I guess dogs can be cats and squares can be circles, everything just blurs together. Oh, never mind, Fox, the deliriously stupid implications of what QW was trying to sell on this thread would have unraveled the cosmos long before we showed up. But then to understand why that's so requires experience with the art of objectivity, the ability to back out of the preconceived notions of embedded patterns of belief.

You've never once even attempted to understand anything I've shared here, and apparently nothing's changed, even though these things are objectively self-evident. I offer you gold and you opt for mud. If you don't understand something, just ask, or open up your Bible and read it sometime.

According to you God is something small, compelled to accommodate free will in accordance with the logic that makes sense to you, while you hysterically imagine that it is I who puts God in a box and wraps it in duct tape.

You've never bothered to explain why God's attributions would necessarily be confined to your anthropomorphic, one-dimensional construct of time in the face of the post that annihilated your purely subjective, preconceived notions regarding something nobody else but you in QW, in truth, claimed to understand absolutely from scripture, albeit, in the rather cramped quarters of a cure for a nonexistent problem that would necessarily create a multitude of others. Oh no! We couldn't possibly live in a multidimensional reality wherein absolute omniscience and free will coexist without contradiction . . . and without the staggeringly complex problems of closing the door on God's absolutely perfect foreknowledge.

Are you challenging the validity of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals? After all, these are the more complex mathematical functions of infinity that are putatively beyond our ken. These go to the ramifications of infinity as a mathematical construct regarding the experientially affirmed phenomena of quantum fields, including the position-momentum dichotomy in the properties of the wave-like systems of quantum physics. You know, among the kinds of things that QW alleged to be . . . irrational, inscrutable, though in fact they flow like water from one coherent postulate to the next.

Or perhaps you can't imagine how it might be possible to propositionally explore the implications of qualities like perfection or eternity or absoluteness . . . on the basis of absolute infinity, linguistically and mathematically, not just in classical logic, but, in spite of what QW averred, in intuitionistic/constructive logic and modal logic as well!

What's easier for you to understand about the apparent metaphysical ramifications of infinity as inferred from the phenomena of multidimensional space and time and the apparent potentialities of the transcendent constructs of ultimacy? The calculus of infinitesimals and quantum physics, or the more apprehensible implications of it in terms of a first-level function of division by infinity in theoretical calculus coupled with an explication of the compound, simultaneity of entities of a single predicate in accordance with the first law of organic thought, A: A = A?

Choose.

In the meantime, Miss The-Details-Don't-Matter Foxfyre, we've just begun to scratch the surface of what is in fact a virtually infinite array of multidimensional potentialities for the contingent, space-time continuum. Why do you suppose that the potentialities of a transcendent realm of being would be anything less complex, not merely as interdimensionally immanent, but multidimensionally immanent?

We already know that time is infinitely more complex in a multidimensional sense than the cramped little world of your relatively tiny god of the logic that makes sense to you, before we even get to the considerations of an overlaid, transcendent realm of being.

Are you hinting at the existence of new formulae in calculus that falsify the multidimensional-field theorems of infinitesimals and quantum physics, as you suggest that you know more than I about the pertinent logic, mathematics, philosophy and science, or are you just pulling on our legs again about how your subjective meanderings that go nowhere are superior to the universally absolute and objectively self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity?

 

[Justin Davis]

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

Well, you know what they say about the thoughtlessly gullible. . . .

No. It was actually QW who pulled on your leg, with the most patently risible bilge regarding the various forms of logic and their conventions, and the relationship between philosophy and science. Well, actually, not quite, after all, we can always count on Hollie to more insane than the average lunatic.

But I know you don't approve of such remarks. Yours are more subtly offensive by way of their thoughtlessness, which is rather bizarre, really, given that you're an absolutist of sorts and that the things I'm sharing are universally objective and, therefore, belong to all of us.

The logical principle of identity is not universal?! So I guess dogs can be cats and squares can be circles, everything just blurs together. Oh, never mind, Fox, the deliriously stupid implications of what QW was trying to sell on this thread would have unraveled the cosmos long before we showed up. But then to understand why that's so requires experience with the art of objectivity, the ability to back out of the preconceived notions of embedded patterns of belief.

You've never once even attempted to understand anything I've shared here, and apparently nothing's changed, even though these things are objectively self-evident. I offer you gold and you opt for mud. If you don't understand something, just ask, or open up your Bible and read it sometime.

According to you God is something small, compelled to accommodate free will in accordance with the logic that makes sense to you, while you hysterically imagine that it is I who puts God in a box and wraps it in duct tape.

You've never bothered to explain why God's attributions would necessarily be confined to your anthropomorphic, one-dimensional construct of time in the face of the post that annihilated your purely subjective, preconceived notions regarding something nobody else but you in QW, in truth, claimed to understand absolutely from scripture, albeit, in the rather cramped quarters of a cure for a nonexistent problem that would necessarily create a multitude of others. Oh no! We couldn't possibly live in a multidimensional reality wherein absolute omniscience and free will coexist without contradiction . . . and without the staggeringly complex problems of closing the door on God's absolutely perfect foreknowledge.

Are you challenging the validity of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals? After all, these are the more complex mathematical functions of infinity that are putatively beyond our ken. These go to the ramifications of infinity as a mathematical construct regarding the experientially affirmed phenomena of quantum fields, including the position-momentum dichotomy in the properties of the wave-like systems of quantum physics. You know, among the kinds of things that QW alleged to be . . . irrational, inscrutable, though in fact they flow like water from one coherent postulate to the next.

Or perhaps you can't imagine how it might be possible to propositionally explore the implications of qualities like perfection or eternity or absoluteness . . . on the basis of absolute infinity, linguistically and mathematically, not just in classical logic, but, in spite of what QW averred, in intuitionistic/constructive logic and modal logic as well!

What's easier for you to understand about the apparent metaphysical ramifications of infinity as inferred from the phenomena of multidimensional space and time and the apparent potentialities of the transcendent constructs of ultimacy? The calculus of infinitesimals and quantum physics, or the more apprehensible implications of it in terms of a first-level function of division by infinity in theoretical calculus coupled with an explication of the compound, simultaneity of entities of a single predicate in accordance with the first law of organic thought, A: A = A?

Choose.

In the meantime, Miss The-Details-Don't-Matter Foxfyre, we've just begun to scratch the surface of what is in fact a virtually infinite array of multidimensional potentialities for the contingent, space-time continuum. Why do you suppose that the potentialities of a transcendent realm of being would be anything less complex, not merely as interdimensionally immanent, but multidimensionally immanent?

We already know that time is infinitely more complex in a multidimensional sense than the cramped little world of your relatively tiny god of the logic that makes sense to you, before we even get to the considerations of an overlaid, transcendent realm of being.

Are you hinting at the existence of new formulae in calculus that falsify the multidimensional-field theorems of infinitesimals and quantum physics, as you suggest that you know more than I about the pertinent logic, mathematics, philosophy and science, or are you just pulling on our legs again about how your subjective meanderings that go nowhere are superior to the universally absolute and objectively self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity?

Bump!

 

[Valerie]

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

Well, you know what they say about the thoughtlessly gullible. . . .

No. It was actually QW who pulled on your leg, with the most patently risible bilge regarding the various forms of logic and their conventions, and the relationship between philosophy and science. Well, actually, not quite, after all, we can always count on Hollie to more insane than the average lunatic.

But I know you don't approve of such remarks. Yours are more subtly offensive by way of their thoughtlessness, which is rather bizarre, really, given that you're an absolutist of sorts and that the things I'm sharing are universally objective and, therefore, belong to all of us.

The logical principle of identity is not universal?! So I guess dogs can be cats and squares can be circles, everything just blurs together. Oh, never mind, Fox, the deliriously stupid implications of what QW was trying to sell on this thread would have unraveled the cosmos long before we showed up. But then to understand why that's so requires experience with the art of objectivity, the ability to back out of the preconceived notions of embedded patterns of belief.

You've never once even attempted to understand anything I've shared here, and apparently nothing's changed, even though these things are objectively self-evident. I offer you gold and you opt for mud. If you don't understand something, just ask, or open up your Bible and read it sometime.

According to you God is something small, compelled to accommodate free will in accordance with the logic that makes sense to you, while you hysterically imagine that it is I who puts God in a box and wraps it in duct tape.

You've never bothered to explain why God's attributions would necessarily be confined to your anthropomorphic, one-dimensional construct of time in the face of the post that annihilated your purely subjective, preconceived notions regarding something nobody else but you in QW, in truth, claimed to understand absolutely from scripture, albeit, in the rather cramped quarters of a cure for a nonexistent problem that would necessarily create a multitude of others. Oh no! We couldn't possibly live in a multidimensional reality wherein absolute omniscience and free will coexist without contradiction . . . and without the staggeringly complex problems of closing the door on God's absolutely perfect foreknowledge.

Are you challenging the validity of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals? After all, these are the more complex mathematical functions of infinity that are putatively beyond our ken. These go to the ramifications of infinity as a mathematical construct regarding the experientially affirmed phenomena of quantum fields, including the position-momentum dichotomy in the properties of the wave-like systems of quantum physics. You know, among the kinds of things that QW alleged to be . . . irrational, inscrutable, though in fact they flow like water from one coherent postulate to the next.

Or perhaps you can't imagine how it might be possible to propositionally explore the implications of qualities like perfection or eternity or absoluteness . . . on the basis of absolute infinity, linguistically and mathematically, not just in classical logic, but, in spite of what QW averred, in intuitionistic/constructive logic and modal logic as well!

What's easier for you to understand about the apparent metaphysical ramifications of infinity as inferred from the phenomena of multidimensional space and time and the apparent potentialities of the transcendent constructs of ultimacy? The calculus of infinitesimals and quantum physics, or the more apprehensible implications of it in terms of a first-level function of division by infinity in theoretical calculus coupled with an explication of the compound, simultaneity of entities of a single predicate in accordance with the first law of organic thought, A: A = A?

Choose.

In the meantime, Miss The-Details-Don't-Matter Foxfyre, we've just begun to scratch the surface of what is in fact a virtually infinite array of multidimensional potentialities for the contingent, space-time continuum. Why do you suppose that the potentialities of a transcendent realm of being would be anything less complex, not merely as interdimensionally immanent, but multidimensionally immanent?

We already know that time is infinitely more complex in a multidimensional sense than the cramped little world of your relatively tiny god of the logic that makes sense to you, before we even get to the considerations of an overlaid, transcendent realm of being.

Are you hinting at the existence of new formulae in calculus that falsify the multidimensional-field theorems of infinitesimals and quantum physics, as you suggest that you know more than I about the pertinent logic, mathematics, philosophy and science, or are you just pulling on our legs again about how your subjective meanderings that go nowhere are superior to the universally absolute and objectively self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity?

Bump!

why?

 

[Justin Davis]

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

Well, you know what they say about the thoughtlessly gullible. . . .

No. It was actually QW who pulled on your leg, with the most patently risible bilge regarding the various forms of logic and their conventions, and the relationship between philosophy and science. Well, actually, not quite, after all, we can always count on Hollie to more insane than the average lunatic.

But I know you don't approve of such remarks. Yours are more subtly offensive by way of their thoughtlessness, which is rather bizarre, really, given that you're an absolutist of sorts and that the things I'm sharing are universally objective and, therefore, belong to all of us.

The logical principle of identity is not universal?! So I guess dogs can be cats and squares can be circles, everything just blurs together. Oh, never mind, Fox, the deliriously stupid implications of what QW was trying to sell on this thread would have unraveled the cosmos long before we showed up. But then to understand why that's so requires experience with the art of objectivity, the ability to back out of the preconceived notions of embedded patterns of belief.

You've never once even attempted to understand anything I've shared here, and apparently nothing's changed, even though these things are objectively self-evident. I offer you gold and you opt for mud. If you don't understand something, just ask, or open up your Bible and read it sometime.

According to you God is something small, compelled to accommodate free will in accordance with the logic that makes sense to you, while you hysterically imagine that it is I who puts God in a box and wraps it in duct tape.

You've never bothered to explain why God's attributions would necessarily be confined to your anthropomorphic, one-dimensional construct of time in the face of the post that annihilated your purely subjective, preconceived notions regarding something nobody else but you in QW, in truth, claimed to understand absolutely from scripture, albeit, in the rather cramped quarters of a cure for a nonexistent problem that would necessarily create a multitude of others. Oh no! We couldn't possibly live in a multidimensional reality wherein absolute omniscience and free will coexist without contradiction . . . and without the staggeringly complex problems of closing the door on God's absolutely perfect foreknowledge.

Are you challenging the validity of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals? After all, these are the more complex mathematical functions of infinity that are putatively beyond our ken. These go to the ramifications of infinity as a mathematical construct regarding the experientially affirmed phenomena of quantum fields, including the position-momentum dichotomy in the properties of the wave-like systems of quantum physics. You know, among the kinds of things that QW alleged to be . . . irrational, inscrutable, though in fact they flow like water from one coherent postulate to the next.

Or perhaps you can't imagine how it might be possible to propositionally explore the implications of qualities like perfection or eternity or absoluteness . . . on the basis of absolute infinity, linguistically and mathematically, not just in classical logic, but, in spite of what QW averred, in intuitionistic/constructive logic and modal logic as well!

What's easier for you to understand about the apparent metaphysical ramifications of infinity as inferred from the phenomena of multidimensional space and time and the apparent potentialities of the transcendent constructs of ultimacy? The calculus of infinitesimals and quantum physics, or the more apprehensible implications of it in terms of a first-level function of division by infinity in theoretical calculus coupled with an explication of the compound, simultaneity of entities of a single predicate in accordance with the first law of organic thought, A: A = A?

Choose.

In the meantime, Miss The-Details-Don't-Matter Foxfyre, we've just begun to scratch the surface of what is in fact a virtually infinite array of multidimensional potentialities for the contingent, space-time continuum. Why do you suppose that the potentialities of a transcendent realm of being would be anything less complex, not merely as interdimensionally immanent, but multidimensionally immanent?

We already know that time is infinitely more complex in a multidimensional sense than the cramped little world of your relatively tiny god of the logic that makes sense to you, before we even get to the considerations of an overlaid, transcendent realm of being.

Are you hinting at the existence of new formulae in calculus that falsify the multidimensional-field theorems of infinitesimals and quantum physics, as you suggest that you know more than I about the pertinent logic, mathematics, philosophy and science, or are you just pulling on our legs again about how your subjective meanderings that go nowhere are superior to the universally absolute and objectively self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity?

Bump!

why?

Why what?

 

[G.T.]

 

[Justin Davis]

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

Well, you know what they say about the thoughtlessly gullible. . . .

No. It was actually QW who pulled on your leg, with the most patently risible bilge regarding the various forms of logic and their conventions, and the relationship between philosophy and science. Well, actually, not quite, after all, we can always count on Hollie to be more insane than the average lunatic.

But I know you don't approve of such remarks. Yours are more subtly offensive by way of their thoughtlessness, which is rather bizarre, really, given that you're an absolutist of sorts and that the things I'm sharing are universally objective and, therefore, belong to all of us.

The logical principle of identity is not universal?! So I guess dogs can be cats and squares can be circles, everything just blurs together. Oh, never mind, Fox, the deliriously stupid implications of what QW was trying to sell on this thread would have unraveled the cosmos long before we showed up. But then to understand why that's so requires experience with the art of objectivity, the ability to back out of the preconceived notions of embedded patterns of belief.

You've never once even attempted to understand anything I've shared here, and apparently nothing's changed, even though these things are objectively self-evident. I offer you gold and you opt for mud. If you don't understand something, just ask, or open up your Bible and read it sometime.

According to you God is something small, compelled to accommodate free will in accordance with the logic that makes sense to you, while you hysterically imagine that it is I who puts God in a box and wraps it in duct tape.

You've never bothered to explain why God's attributions would necessarily be confined to your anthropomorphic, one-dimensional construct of time in the face of the post that annihilated your purely subjective, preconceived notions regarding something nobody else but you in QW, in truth, claimed to understand absolutely from scripture, albeit, in the rather cramped quarters of a cure for a nonexistent problem that would necessarily create a multitude of others. Oh no! We couldn't possibly live in a multidimensional reality wherein absolute omniscience and free will coexist without contradiction . . . and without the staggeringly complex problems of closing the door on God's absolutely perfect foreknowledge.

Are you challenging the validity of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals? After all, these are the more complex mathematical functions of infinity that are putatively beyond our ken. These go to the ramifications of infinity as a mathematical construct regarding the experientially affirmed phenomena of quantum fields, including the position-momentum dichotomy in the properties of the wave-like systems of quantum physics. You know, among the kinds of things that QW alleged to be . . . irrational, inscrutable, though in fact they flow like water from one coherent postulate to the next.

Or perhaps you can't imagine how it might be possible to propositionally explore the implications of qualities like perfection or eternity or absoluteness . . . on the basis of absolute infinity, linguistically and mathematically, not just in classical logic, but, in spite of what QW averred, in intuitionistic/constructive logic and modal logic as well!

What's easier for you to understand about the apparent metaphysical ramifications of infinity as inferred from the phenomena of multidimensional space and time and the apparent potentialities of the transcendent constructs of ultimacy? The calculus of infinitesimals and quantum physics, or the more apprehensible implications of it in terms of a first-level function of division by infinity in theoretical calculus coupled with an explication of the compound, simultaneity of entities of a single predicate in accordance with the first law of organic thought, A: A = A?

Choose.

In the meantime, Miss The-Details-Don't-Matter Foxfyre, we've just begun to scratch the surface of what is in fact a virtually infinite array of multidimensional potentialities for the contingent, space-time continuum. Why do you suppose that the potentialities of a transcendent realm of being would be anything less complex, not merely as interdimensionally immanent, but multidimensionally immanent?

We already know that time is infinitely more complex in a multidimensional sense than the cramped little world of your relatively tiny god of the logic that makes sense to you, before we even get to the considerations of an overlaid, transcendent realm of being.

Are you hinting at the existence of new formulae in calculus that falsify the multidimensional-field theorems of infinitesimals and quantum physics, as you suggest that you know more than I about the pertinent logic, mathematics, philosophy and science, or are you just pulling on our legs again about how your subjective meanderings that go nowhere are superior to the universally absolute and objectively self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity?

Most people don't think in objective terms. They come to discussions with their biases and simply react. You can tell because they write ideas back to you that are not in your posts. Typically, these ideas reflect what they believe in way or another which very often reveals to the objective thinker precisely what's going on in their minds, basically what they themselves believe to be true. G.T. for example is a stone cold naturalist. The TAG argument is so obvious that most any child above the age of 12 could get it. I know as I tested it in Sunday school. It was too much for of the kids under that age, but the young teens had no problem understanding it once explained and one of them got it without explanation. To make sure he wasn't just saying you can't do that because it's wrong to disbelieve in God I asked him why. Because God is the Creator. No Creator, there's no creation at all! G.T. says it's not a proof because it's claiming God exists where there's not physical evidence, when the proof is simply in the logic of the denial itself. Simple. Get that and move on.

 

[G.T.]

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

Well, you know what they say about the thoughtlessly gullible. . . .

No. It was actually QW who pulled on your leg, with the most patently risible bilge regarding the various forms of logic and their conventions, and the relationship between philosophy and science. Well, actually, not quite, after all, we can always count on Hollie to be more insane than the average lunatic.

But I know you don't approve of such remarks. Yours are more subtly offensive by way of their thoughtlessness, which is rather bizarre, really, given that you're an absolutist of sorts and that the things I'm sharing are universally objective and, therefore, belong to all of us.

The logical principle of identity is not universal?! So I guess dogs can be cats and squares can be circles, everything just blurs together. Oh, never mind, Fox, the deliriously stupid implications of what QW was trying to sell on this thread would have unraveled the cosmos long before we showed up. But then to understand why that's so requires experience with the art of objectivity, the ability to back out of the preconceived notions of embedded patterns of belief.

You've never once even attempted to understand anything I've shared here, and apparently nothing's changed, even though these things are objectively self-evident. I offer you gold and you opt for mud. If you don't understand something, just ask, or open up your Bible and read it sometime.

According to you God is something small, compelled to accommodate free will in accordance with the logic that makes sense to you, while you hysterically imagine that it is I who puts God in a box and wraps it in duct tape.

You've never bothered to explain why God's attributions would necessarily be confined to your anthropomorphic, one-dimensional construct of time in the face of the post that annihilated your purely subjective, preconceived notions regarding something nobody else but you in QW, in truth, claimed to understand absolutely from scripture, albeit, in the rather cramped quarters of a cure for a nonexistent problem that would necessarily create a multitude of others. Oh no! We couldn't possibly live in a multidimensional reality wherein absolute omniscience and free will coexist without contradiction . . . and without the staggeringly complex problems of closing the door on God's absolutely perfect foreknowledge.

Are you challenging the validity of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals? After all, these are the more complex mathematical functions of infinity that are putatively beyond our ken. These go to the ramifications of infinity as a mathematical construct regarding the experientially affirmed phenomena of quantum fields, including the position-momentum dichotomy in the properties of the wave-like systems of quantum physics. You know, among the kinds of things that QW alleged to be . . . irrational, inscrutable, though in fact they flow like water from one coherent postulate to the next.

Or perhaps you can't imagine how it might be possible to propositionally explore the implications of qualities like perfection or eternity or absoluteness . . . on the basis of absolute infinity, linguistically and mathematically, not just in classical logic, but, in spite of what QW averred, in intuitionistic/constructive logic and modal logic as well!

What's easier for you to understand about the apparent metaphysical ramifications of infinity as inferred from the phenomena of multidimensional space and time and the apparent potentialities of the transcendent constructs of ultimacy? The calculus of infinitesimals and quantum physics, or the more apprehensible implications of it in terms of a first-level function of division by infinity in theoretical calculus coupled with an explication of the compound, simultaneity of entities of a single predicate in accordance with the first law of organic thought, A: A = A?

Choose.

In the meantime, Miss The-Details-Don't-Matter Foxfyre, we've just begun to scratch the surface of what is in fact a virtually infinite array of multidimensional potentialities for the contingent, space-time continuum. Why do you suppose that the potentialities of a transcendent realm of being would be anything less complex, not merely as interdimensionally immanent, but multidimensionally immanent?

We already know that time is infinitely more complex in a multidimensional sense than the cramped little world of your relatively tiny god of the logic that makes sense to you, before we even get to the considerations of an overlaid, transcendent realm of being.

Are you hinting at the existence of new formulae in calculus that falsify the multidimensional-field theorems of infinitesimals and quantum physics, as you suggest that you know more than I about the pertinent logic, mathematics, philosophy and science, or are you just pulling on our legs again about how your subjective meanderings that go nowhere are superior to the universally absolute and objectively self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity?

Most people don't think in objective terms. They come to discussions with their biases and simply react. You can tell because they write ideas back to you that are not in your posts. Typically, these ideas reflect what they believe in way or another which very often reveals to the objective thinker precisely what' going on in their minds, basically what they themselves believe to be true. G.T. for example is a stone cold naturalist. The TAG argument is so obvious that most any child above the age of 12 could get. I know as I tested it in Sunday school. It was too much for of the kids under that age, but the young teens had no problem understanding it once explained and one of them got it without explanation. To make sure he wasn't just saying you can't do that because it's wrong to disbelieve in God I asked him why. Because God is the Creator. No Creator, there's no creation at all! G.T. says it's not a proof because it's claiming God exists where there's not physical evidence, when the proof is simply in the logic of the denial itself. Simple. Get that and move on.

"the proof is in the logic of the denial itself"



no, it's not.

you dopes think that someone who is using knowledge is proving god no matter what, because you dopes presuppose god is knowledge's source. that's begging the question. to someone who doesn't beg the question, using knowledge does not prove god because logic/knowledge isn't proven to come from god. you only presupp it. you beg the question, by the very definition of begging the question, which is not rational it's the exact opposite of rational.

i do understand why you get so upset and lash out. your entire argument is a canaard. it is snake oil for gullible dopes.

 

[G.T.]

The laws of logic don't become absolute when authored by a sentient mind, or "god's mind."

They're the opposite, because they're based on his whim in that scenario. That's not what absolute means, "dependent" upon something (god's mind). That is the opposite of what absolute means.

Therefore, any argument presupposing absolute logic or knowledge is an argument AGAINST god being the author.


See how that shoddy, shoddy fucking logic works? It's retarded.

The laws are logic are absolute because they apply to actual existence, and existence is absolute as "proponents of the five" have already conceded.

Chase your tails, dimwits.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting. And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.

But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on. And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God. If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible. If I am wrong, I apologize.

I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is. I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.

 

[dblack]

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.

LOL. Ok man.

 

[dblack]

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.

That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting. And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.

But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on. And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God. If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible. If I am wrong, I apologize.

I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is. I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.

Don't worry, Foxy. I have plenty of examples of real Christians to counter this nonsense.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The laws of logic don't become absolute when authored by a sentient mind, or "god's mind."

They're the opposite, because they're based on his whim in that scenario. That's not what absolute means, "dependent" upon something (god's mind). That is the opposite of what absolute means.

Therefore, any argument presupposing absolute logic or knowledge is an argument AGAINST god being the author.


See how that shoddy, shoddy fucking logic works? It's retarded.

The laws are logic are absolute because they apply to actual existence, and existence is absolute as "proponents of the five" have already conceded.

Chase your tails, dimwits.

Psst, G.T., given the fact that propositions of necessary enabling conditions (pressupositionals) are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic in peer-reviewed academia, no serious logician gives a hoot about your opinion, let alone your incoherent gibberish. Check?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.

That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us

It defied the actual definition of miracle.

It's happening in nature, every day. Miracles by definition are not natural.

Also - there's likely millions of planets out there in this same goldilocks zone. The more common we discover that it is, the l;ess "special" it is as a natural occurrence. Do you forget how much of the universe we can't even see or explore yet? That's: 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999^infinity-power.

You're living in a daily miracle

 

[Hollie]

"the proof is in the logic of the denial itself"

I had to read that a couple of times to understand it was the raving of a nutbar who had ignored all the warnings about working in confined spaces without protective gear.

 

[G.T.]

The laws of logic don't become absolute when authored by a sentient mind, or "god's mind."

They're the opposite, because they're based on his whim in that scenario. That's not what absolute means, "dependent" upon something (god's mind). That is the opposite of what absolute means.

Therefore, any argument presupposing absolute logic or knowledge is an argument AGAINST god being the author.


See how that shoddy, shoddy fucking logic works? It's retarded.

The laws are logic are absolute because they apply to actual existence, and existence is absolute as "proponents of the five" have already conceded.

Chase your tails, dimwits.

Psst, G.T., given the fact that propositions of necessary enabling conditions (pressupositionals) are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic in peer-reviewed academia, no serious logician gives a hoot about your opinion, let alone your incoherent gibberish. Check?

If you're what is considered a serious logician, then that is a compliment. Thanks!

Way to dip duck dodge, though. Figures.

 

[G.T.]

The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.

That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us

It defied the actual definition of miracle.

It's happening in nature, every day. Miracles by definition are not natural.

Also - there's likely millions of planets out there in this same goldilocks zone. The more common we discover that it is, the l;ess "special" it is as a natural occurrence. Do you forget how much of the universe we can't even see or explore yet? That's: 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999^infinity-power.

You're living in a daily miracle

Miraculous compared to what?