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

[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.

 

[Hollie]

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.

What are you talking about? No one is pulling on your leg. I'm dead serious about the things I'm sharing. Everything I know comes from the Bible, but these things are also in our minds, put there by God. You think I could understand these things without the guidance of God's word? I understand these things from God's word first. As for Justin, his single paragraphs were killing my eyes, so I gave him some pointers on this thread about how to think about writing paragraphs, breaking up related sets of sentences, and some pointers on connectors and the punctuation thereof. That's why his writing has change, and for the better, a little rough at first, a little trail and error, but he's getting it. He always had a good sense for Subject-predicate-object, but those single paragraphs were killers.

As far as QW goes, the man lied about virtually everything as we got deeper into logic, and he didn't like what I was arguing. Too bad. What he was claiming is sheer bullshit.

Again if I am wrong I will apologize. But I have been around the block a few times, and the longer this goes, the more it smells. And re your relationship with Justin? Uh huh. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Look, I don't know where this personal stuff has been coming from with you on this thread, but I'd just as soon stick to the issues, and the fact of the matter is that some have done nothing but argue against the man, not the ideas, frankly, because the ideas are rock solid.

Justin's beef with QW and G.T., is not the same as mine. Justin doesn't like liars. He takes it too personally, and I have told him so on this thread. My response to that kind of thing is to make arguments. Beyond that, Justin shares my theological interests. So?

I think you and Justin have made it very very personal in your non stop ridicule, disrespect for, and direct insults of other members on the thread. And yes a lot of them have done the same, but I just expect or at least hope for better from Christians. And I didn't intend to make it personal, but I am human enough to not wish to make it known when I think I'm being taken for a ride and am being played for a fool. Again if I'm wrong, I will apologize.

No. I haven't made it personal. I didn't, for example, out of the blue go postal atheist as dblack did. Why don't you ask him about that.

The atheists on this thread have done what they always do, Fox. Attack the man. That's mostly all they ever do. I've observed this same click do this over and over again, trashing threads, killing them, and I've stayed out of it, and dblack can't seem to make up his mind: is he going to be an adult or go with the crowd?

Look here, for example, the TAG argument is what is referred to as a presuppositional of a necessary enabling condition in the literature. Such propositions are routinely used in all forms of logic, including constructive logic, "the logic of science." Why? Because these kinds of axioms let us get at the metaphysics of empirical phenomena, transcendence and science; ultimately, they serve to divulge new ways to look at reality and methodology. The TAG was first formally put forward by Kant. It's older than that, of course, as it's biological. It's in the Bible. It's always been with us.

It's the most celebrated presuppositional, and it is in fact a centuries-old, well-established axiom that cannot be denied or refuted. Professional logicians know this, whether they be theists, atheists or agnostics. If this argument were nothing more than what these idiots are saying, WHO WOULD CARE ABOUT IT?

Seriously, who would care? No one! We wouldn't be talking about it at all. He wouldn't even exist.

The point?

Why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby we cannot logically state or think God doesn't exist without contradicting ourselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should that be? That's no little thing. And that's why this argument stands out from the others, as the others are indirectly evidentiary.

But what do we see on this board? Trash talk without a clue.

Besides, I'm talking to Emily who wished to understand some things.

The fact of the matter is that from time to time, I've picked up a two-by-four of an argument to shut this or that sidelining, discrediting mouth down.

You want to put down the universally and objectively self-evident facts of the problems of existence and origin impressed on our minds in the face of a crowd that wants to believe, has to believe, that theisms is not based on anything rational, doesn't want to see or concede what they know to be true as I propound it?

That's why it's personal, but not on my end.

Your hysterical "snot" rants tell us otherwise. You're just dishonest.

 

[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.

Well, I gotta admit. I fell for it. I thought was MDR was serious - off-center and nutty but serious.

I did too until the lines began blurring until it became impossible to separate Justin's and MDR's posts, and after considering some of the absolutely irrational and incomprehensible, suddenly the light bulb when on. Or I think it did. But if I am right, I was pretty slow on the uptake on this one.

Ah well. At least it has been an active thread. And if I am right, I can take comfort in my suspicions because I don't have to think badly of a serious Christian.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
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: There's two persons talking on a topic about God's existence from the bible, from bible-believing backgrounds with similar theological interests, from the same book and the same religion out of hw many people on this thread?.

MD: What are you talking about? No one is pulling on your leg. I'm dead serious about the things I'm sharing. Everything I know comes from the Bible, but these things are also in our minds, put there by God.

MD: Beyond that, Justin shares my theological interests. So?

MD: dblack, Fox's doctrine on free will is not scripturally, theologically or historically orthodox in either Jewish or Christian hermeneutics at all! In fact, it defies the biblical ramifications of the doctrine of Christ as the universal Logos of creation and the omnipresent sustainer of the cosmological order.

jd: Nonsense. It's not my business to tell you which religion, if any, is the true religion of God ... 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.


so, the conclusion of your TAG is not meant to lead to an alterior motive of religious doctrine ? -

and you insinuate others are liars - more like one who is, knows no difference and for some is the proof by their denial.


without substantiating a religion the TAG in itself becomes meanigless rehtoic - either move to the next step or -

SHUT UP

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Justin doesn't know his head from his ass and his slinging liar accusations about is fucking childish.

He doesnt like to be challenged, and he doesn't like when his crutch is not around to defend him. When md is not around, justin's responses are insults.

when md is around, justin's responses are quotes from md's responses.

a couple of gullible snakes in the grass is the pair of them.

That's bull. When I was reading one of Emily's posts: you, Justin, Hollie, and Emily, of course, where in the same string. And in that string Justin was striking a conciliatory note directed at you and Hollie, only to get his teeth kicked in again. I imagine he's tired of getting his teeth kicked in, especially after you have done virtually nothing but lie on this thread. I don't recall what the last blow up was between you two, but what I do know is that you lied about the proper terms for science. A nothing . A trifle. LOL! An "Oh, that's right" was all that was required there. You repeated it, even called me a liar. LOL! Your pals all lined up behind it, as usual, because you guys don't care about truth, until a pulled out my two-by-four and left a mark.

But a dog's got to have it's bone . . . of contention, and you soon found something new to lie about.

LOL!

You've yet to square your trash talk about the TAG with what would have to be true in reality about an argument that's stood the test of time for centuries. I shared that background with you. Recall? Nope. You never acknowledge it.

Atheism is a disease of the mind.

So you're all smarter than Kant and the other famous logicians and philosophers I listed, eh? Really?

You guys couldn't be missing something . . . It's self-evident.

But by all means carry on. . . .

I'm almost done with this thread anyway, just a few more points with Emily. That covers it.

 

[Hollie]

Justin doesn't know his head from his ass and his slinging liar accusations about is fucking childish.

He doesnt like to be challenged, and he doesn't like when his crutch is not around to defend him. When md is not around, justin's responses are insults.

when md is around, justin's responses are quotes from md's responses.

a couple of gullible snakes in the grass is the pair of them.

That's bull. When I was reading one of Emily's posts: you, Justin, Hollie, and Emily, of course, where in the same string. And in that string Justin was striking a conciliatory note directed at you and Hollie, only to get his teeth kicked in again. I imagine he's tired of getting his teeth kicked in, especially after you have done virtually nothing but lie on this thread. I don't recall what the last blow up was between you two, but what I do know is that you lied about the proper terms for science. A nothing . A trifle. LOL! An "Oh, that's right" was all that was required there. You repeated it, even called me a liar. LOL! Your pals all lined up behind it, as usual, because you guys don't care about truth, until a pulled out my two-by-four and left a mark.

But a dog's got to have it's bone . . . of contention, and you soon found something new to lie about.

LOL!

You've yet to square your trash talk about the TAG with what would have to be true in reality about an argument that's stood the test of time for centuries. I shared that background with you. Recall? Nope. You never acknowledge it.

Atheism is a disease of the mind.

So you're all smarter than Kant and the other famous logicians and philosophers I listed, eh? Really?

You guys couldn't be missing something . . . It's self-evident.

But by all means carry on. . . .

I'm almost done with this thread anyway, just a few more points with Emily. That covers it.

Before you go, leave us with one more verse of:

"you can't refute the objective facts of human cognition regarding the immediate imperatives of the problems of existence and origin".

 

[G.T.]

Actually - tag is not rational as an argument and I have shown as much, and your lack of coherent bumblefuck masquerading as intelligence has not had the balls to face that music.

 

[G.T.]

One thing about a snake oil salesman, is it takes a little while for them to perceive when they're caught.

Lol tag is proof of god. Pfffffffffffft

 

[G.T.]

My m.d. Rawlings impression.... Hollie tell me if I'm close:

"The rational origins of ontological expressions found in the imperatives of first cognition are the classical and organic laws of irrefutable and absolute perfection within the metaphysical and scientific realms of necessity and something something infinity because axioms! Nitwits refute themselves bY even questioning such eloquence!"

 

[Hollie]

My m.d. Rawlings impression.... Hollie tell me if I'm close:

"The rational origins of ontological expressions found in the imperatives of first cognition are the classical and organic laws of irrefutable and absolute perfection within the metaphysical and scientific realms of necessity and something something infinity because axioms! Nitwits refute themselves bY even questioning such eloquence!"

Ya' can't argue against such a bulletproof argument, because I say so!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Well, I gotta admit. I fell for it. I thought was MDR was serious - off-center and nutty but serious.

I did too until the lines began blurring until it became impossible to separate Justin's and MDR's posts, and after considering some of the absolutely irrational and incomprehensible, suddenly the light bulb when on. Or I think it did. But if I am right, I was pretty slow on the uptake on this one.

Ah well. At least it has been an active thread. And if I am right, I can take comfort in my suspicions because I don't have to think badly of a serious Christian.

Irrational and incomprehensible? FOX, Justin is studying the very same things in Henry and Lang right now before he came to this forum. That's why he stopped on this thread. He's already shared that more than once? He also shared that he's copying and pasting my posts for study.

Are Henry and Lang irrational and incomprehensible too? You even commented on a video Lang was in on this thread. Lang has work on the universal principle of identity, talking about the very same things. They're both Christians, highly regarded biblically orthodox Christians.

Strike irrational, and you'll have the truth. Incomprehensible to you maybe, though these things be self-evident.

Personal garbage. Slights without argument. Paranoia. False accusations. Gossiping.

What is irrational?

 

[Foxfyre]

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

I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes: just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.

That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists. They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events. But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.

So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish. Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis. Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects. Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.

In the syllogistic model:

The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.

Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.

Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.

 

[G.T.]

How do you arrive at a probability for something when you don't know how many times and how often it has occurred?

We can say how probable it is to die of heart disease, because we know how many people there are and we know how many die of it.

We do not know how many planets inhabit life out of how many. Sooooo.............

 

[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.

Well, I gotta admit. I fell for it. I thought was MDR was serious - off-center and nutty but serious.

I did too until the lines began blurring until it became impossible to separate Justin's and MDR's posts, and after considering some of the absolutely irrational and incomprehensible, suddenly the light bulb when on. Or I think it did. But if I am right, I was pretty slow on the uptake on this one.

Ah well. At least it has been an active thread. And if I am right, I can take comfort in my suspicions because I don't have to think badly of a serious Christian.

Irrational and incomprehensible? FOX, Justin is studying the very same things in Henry and Lang right now before he came to this forum. That's why he stopped on this thread. He's already shared that more than once? He also shared that he's copying and pasting my posts for study.

Are Henry and Lang irrational and incomprehensible too? You even commented on a video Lang was in on this thread. Lang has work on the universal principle of identity, talking about the very same things. They're both Christians, highly regarded biblically orthodox Christians.

Strike irrational, and you'll have the truth. Incomprehensible to you maybe, though these things be self-evident.

Personal garbage. Slights without argument. Paranoia. False accusations. Gossiping.

What is irrational?

I am not discussing Henry and Lang in this context. I am discussing the improbability of authenticity based on what I have been reading for more than 2400 posts now. It requires a great deal of mental concentration and concentrated effort to change one's literary posting style. I am happy you have a Justin to follow you around and give you great praise and confirmation for posting a great deal of irrelevant and often illogical and even more incomprehensible wall of high sounding theological text apparently in an effort to impress. But the literary style morphed far too quickly into one thought, one concept, one conclusion within that same wall of text to be believable any longer.'

Again a good practical joke. Halloween, the time of year for practical jokes, is coming up soon. That part was well done. I'm just not buying it any more.

 

[Hollie]

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

I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes: just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.

That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists. They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events. But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.

So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish. Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis. Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects. Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.

In the syllogistic model:

The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.

Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.

Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.

I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.

In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).

It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.

 

[G.T.]

Primacy of existence. Existence happened first, rational minds came after.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes: just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.

That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists. They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events. But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.

So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish. Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis. Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects. Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.

In the syllogistic model:

The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.

Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.

Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.

I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.

In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).

It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.

We can disagree on what 'chance' and/or mathematical probability is. And in this context it has absolutely nothing to do with models or paradox's of any god or gods or what is or is not harmonious.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Emily:

Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that 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; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. 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 God (the Creator) out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10014560/

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke

 

[G.T.]

Fool still doesn't know what axiom means.

 

[dblack]

Also, are you saying that only real Christians believe things about the transcendent realm of being that, not only do not line up with scripture, but do not line up with the corresponding expressions of empirical phenomena? If the Bible is true, the expressions of the two respective realms of being should line up, albeit, with the created realm being a contingent foreshadowing of the transcendent. In short, what she doesn't comprehend in all of this, and neither do you, apparently, is that if she's right, the created realm is greater in terms of structural and expressional complexity than the realm of God.

Whaaaaaaaaaaa?

God reveals Himself in what He has impressed upon our minds, through scripture and through the cosmological order. He is infinitely greater and more complex than His creation!

Sorry. I can't read that stuff anymore. I'm saying that despite the fact that I perceive you to be a pompous, deluded jackass, I don't see those traits as commonly "Christian". Most of the Christians I know are decent people and many of them are highly intelligent and thoughtful.