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

[Ellipsis]

So where can I go to then be able to say: your god is obviously existant... like a tree is obviously in existence.

Buddha and Jesus tell us to look inward.

Your inner tree, so to speek; all animals, plants, and fungi share an ancestor that lived about 1.6 billion years ago.

Your inner god is imo the only god which really matters.

 

[G.T.]

post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

...how come EVERYONE can't verify your god?

They are usually looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing.

So where can I go to then be able to say: your god is obviously existant... like a tree is obviously in existence.

Where have you been seeking?

We are told that the Kingdom of God is within; that it is in our midst; to seek God in the small things, to look for Him in hindsight. We are advised to be persistent in seeking and knocking.

I AM!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"We all realize He would be composed of an immaterial substance that is transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent." No we don't ALL realize this. As it's not necessarily the case.
But we all do realize that a tree exists and is made of wood.

What's not necessarily the case? Be specific, because you do in fact have an idea of God in you mind, and that idea is of a Being Who created everything else that exists.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"

On ignore. Talk to the wall.

 

[G.T.]

Soundly defeated, and summarily dismissed.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Answer it within the new parameters. Conversations evolve, that's how they're had.

I did: some people are blind.

I wouldn't even bother with him, Pezz. He endlessly argues and quibbles over things that are objectively and logically true, as he makes up his own definitions. The fact is, conversations never evolve with him, but are always stagnant wastes of time, as he never gets anywhere and quibbles about things that are obviously and logically true.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

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.

View attachment 33226

no, that is not God ...

what you are saying is manifested from your scriptures you are unable to decipher any other way - " No one comes to the Father except through me "

.

Looks like you can’t say the Creator doesn’t exist after all because that doesn't logically work.

jd: Looks like you can’t say the Creator doesn’t exist after all because that doesn't logically work.

.

what is flawed is the logic you use that is not supported by your underlying religion that prevents the biblicists from the true endeavor for Admission to the Everlasting a simple belief in the existence of the Almighty will not by itself accomplish.

you fail not in believing in God but the means of accomplishing the fulfillment necessary to make your belief meaningful.

.

 

[G.T.]

Answer it within the new parameters. Conversations evolve, that's how they're had.

I did: some people are blind.

I wouldn't even bother with him, Pezz. He endlessly argues and quibbles over things that are objectively and logically true, as he makes up his own definitions. The fact is, conversations never evolve with him, but are always stagnant wastes of time, as he never gets anywhere and quibbles about things that are obviously and logically true.

projection.

 

[Hollie]

If a god really did exist, would we really be arguing over its existence? Wouldn't its existence be obvious to everyone, like a tree or water is?

To most of us, it IS that obvious.

"most". EVERYONE can look at a tree and agree: ya, that's a tree. Not just "most" of us. But that's because a tree really does exist, and it's actually obvious to EVERYONE.

Axioms aren't just things that are obvious, or things most people agree on. They're chosen as the starting place for an argument. Anything can be chosen an axiom. But if people don't buy into your axioms, they're not going to accept your argument.

Yep.

Answer it within the new parameters. Conversations evolve, that's how they're had.

I did: some people are blind.

I wouldn't even bother with him, Pezz. He endlessly argues and quibbles over things that are objectively and logically true, as he makes up his own definitions. The fact is, conversations never evolve with him, but are always stagnant wastes of time, as he never gets anywhere and quibbles about things that are obviously and logically true.

Well, to be honest, Bunky, your juvenile TAG argument doesn't even approach truth. It's intellectual Sloth.

When your nonsensical argument is preconfigured to yield a predetermined result, that's not an argument, it's fundamentalist Christian apologetics. While you have cut and pasted the goofy premise for the TAG too many times to count, have you noticed that you, and your sock "Justin", are the only ones buying into it?

It's really just a shame that you would subject others to your tactics of proselytizing with failed arguments delivered with all the tact of loud, sweaty, smelly WEC wrestler. You do a disservice (I never knew that was possible), to the used car salesman cult of JW's.

 

[emilynghiem]

.

3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!

The possibility ... cannot be logically ruled out!

because there is a possibility, does not describe the actual existing condition.


... including the cosmological order

I believe the Creator exists within the Everlasting and did not create that state and the Everlasting is tangentially responsible for the cosmological order to what exists / does not exist within it.

all hail the Creator, but that the Creator is among many ...


GT makes sense at the same level as MD the Proselytizer, -

amen.

.

"because there is a possibility, does not describe the actual existing condition."

Possibility does not necessarily equal actuality? That's what #3 says. So you agree with it right? So the Everlasting is your name for the ultimate ground of all other things, the ultimate God or Creator right? That's what #3 says. So you agree with it right?

Amen.

So the Everlasting is your name for the ultimate ground of all other things, the ultimate God or Creator right?

no, it is the state for existence and will always be -

continuing to exist Spiritually would have been an accomplishment for the Creator first and is possible for whatever may attempt the feat, the Everlasting - what comes afterwards can be anything.

"your" TAG =/= Christianity, so what really is your point if recognized that does not satisfy the same for all other religions ?

.

re: "your" TAG =/= Christianity, so what really is your point if recognized that does not satisfy the same for all other religions ?

Dear Breezewood: Take any concept from Christianity that is universal,
and by definition it will apply to people of all religions.

The way I explain it, is that the other religions or laws all under the one CENTRAL law or authority over ALL,
is like the several states with their OWN local laws ALL under ONE CENTRAL unifying LAW of the LAND for all states.

So you can have BOTH.

You can have ONE law or authority that is Lord/Source/Law over ALL people and ALL states,
AND you can have respect for Individual laws or religions that those people follow LOCALLY.

there is NO contradiction between local and global unless you pick a fight and have a conflict that isn't resolved.

As long as you forgive and reconcile any conflict that arises between local laws and the universal level of
natural laws for everyone, then you have BOTH existing in harmony.

So the point of Christianity is to FULFILL That path, to fulfill ALL laws with the ONE spirit of truth and justice with mercy
so there is law order and peace for everyone, as Equal children of God who are Equal under the law with Equal justice and Equal protections. We keep our diversity as part of God's creation and design and purpose for each of us; but we are Unified in spirit as ONE human family.

As we FORGIVE and let go our FEAR of these differences we were created with,
we will establish and receive the wisdom and understanding we need to grow together and work out the rest
that threatens to separate or challenges us.

Peace to you.

I hope you are one who can RISE ABOVE the differences
and join in the common spirit of God that includes all these other ways.

And it is STILL uniting in Christ Jesus, as the Christians have long taught and represented,
but it does NOT negate the fact we still have nontheists/atheists under natural laws who are not following
the same laws of the church as Christians do. The Natural Laws are the Other fold of the one flock,
and Jesus as a symbol of Divine Justice and Authority of Law over all humanity still governs the secular
gentiles and nontheists under Natural Laws equally fulfilled by the spirit of Justice or Jesus which brings
Salvation and Peace to all.

It's the same message, but yes, the different people of different tribes, religions, laws of all nations and states
will Express this Justice differently. It's still the same spirit of Justice for all humanity, though we keep our diverse
traditions for those respective tribes. All the branches are still part of the one tree where Justice or Jesus is the trunk.

All religions are included, and yet there is still one Authority over all that Jesus represents as
God's divine justice with mercy made manifest when all humanity embraces and embodies the
laws as the church body or community of people. All humanity is included, regardless what tribe we affiliate with.

I pray you get this so there is no more contradiction or conflict
separating you from Justin or him from you. We are one in Christ Jesus
and it is only our fear and rejection that separates us from the love of God's truth
that transcends our worldly differences that are there for a reason. That is still part of God's truth and plan
and is not in conflict with it.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi MD I think we are talking past each other.
I'm not saying the SYMBOLISM cannot be proven to be consistent.

I'm saying that because we cannot perceive and empirically experience God in full form
we cannot prove that level.

We can prove representations and work within that framework
but God of course is beyond the scope of man.

I have a friend who could probably explain what I mean that this cannot be proven directly.

My online friend Nirmaldasan was given that goat-goat-car problem off Marilyn Vos Savant's website.
But since in real life you only get ONE shot at picking the door (or you can switch) but it's still ONE trial.

He could NOT understand this 2 out of 3 chances or 1 out of 3.
Because you don't get 3 picks and then show that 2/3 or 1/3 end up being the car or goat.

You only get 1 shot so he was saying it was 50/50
either 0% getting the car or 100%.

Since we could not set up a ONE SHOT trial that would prove to him it was 2/3
he couldn't follow that. All the math calculations and averages over MULTIPLE trials show 2/3
but he kept saying "you only get one trial, not 3, not 100"

So it could never be proven in real life to him.

He had some other issue, where he didn't trust academics who thought they
were smarter than people with common sense.

So that was blocking him from understanding the math
or accepting the answer.

The math proves it, but logistically for people to FOLLOW the proof
and BELIEVE / UNDERSTAND it is another level.

(NOTE: even when a computer programmer I know studied this car/goat/goat problem,
and KNEW that 2/3 was the right answer, and DID TRIALS himself to get 2/3 on average,
his BRAIN still didn't get why it wasn't coming out 50/50 as he thought. It was counterintuitive
and his brain kept thinking two doors two choices should be 50/50.

so even if someone KNOWS it is the right answer and is getting it physically,
there is still a process in the brain someone has to go through to RECONCILE it)

Sorry to get off track, MD

I have found that people WILL come to agree on this
but just not the way you or I may think it happens.

MD the realization and knowledge you and I have is still faith based.
You and I are at peace with that, some people are and some people aren't.

My boyfriend is at peace knowing there is some kind of God but can't explain
it to his agnostic brother who has to come to his own peace of mind and realization his way.

I think it is FASCINATING how you present one way to let go and get there,
my boyfriend let go and found his own way, I have my own way which is weirder than
everyone's else combined, and each person I know has their own way.

Well, we can't scientifically verify the substances of certain logical conceptualizations about God only because, well, He's not material. That's all. But apprehending the various attributes that would necessarily apply to the construct of an ultimate, transcendent ground for existence without begging the question is no sweat, as the construct of infinity is readily conceivable and, therefore, readily expressible in linguistic or mathematical symbology. So I think we're actually on the same page. Just bear in mind these are actual proofs. Science doesn't do proofs. It does the experimental affirmations of verification and falsification just like Justin explained.

BTW M.D. Rawlings
RE: Scientific proof
This is where I hope we get on the same page
with the reason why we should focus on proving Spiritual Healing
which CAN be observed, measured, and quantifed using medical research studies and science.

Not only will it show the valid process and results of Christian prayer and why it works,
and why this is natural and not against science but working with medicine;

but it relies on using Forgiveness as the key to the therapy and stages of healing.
So even people witnessing, studying and learning from the studies
will receive understanding of forgiveness and healing.

not only the process WITHIN the study teaches the impact of forgiveness on healing,
but the process AROUND the proof and people interacting is part of the greater healing.

And we will remove the SAME barriers getting you stuck in your arguments with people
who are rejecting or dividing. So it will help achieve and establish your stated points but Indirectly
in the process.

Such a proof of healing process will cover even MORE bases
because there are some people who need to get past other issues in the way of reaching agreement.

So it will reach more people, cover more ground more cases and objections or conflicts, and still help remove
the barriers you face as to why people aren't on the same page with your points as well.

 

[Ellipsis]

post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"

What's 'TAG'?

 

[G.T.]

post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"

What's 'TAG'?

Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.


TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.

It states it "proves" god.

It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.

It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.

TAG goes:

1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
2. there is knowledge
3. therefore, god exists

That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."

Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

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.

View attachment 33226

no, that is not God ...

what you are saying is manifested from your scriptures you are unable to decipher any other way - " No one comes to the Father except through me "

.

Looks like you can’t say the Creator doesn’t exist after all because that doesn't logically work.

jd: Looks like you can’t say the Creator doesn’t exist after all because that doesn't logically work.

.

what is flawed is the logic you use that is not supported by your underlying religion that prevents the biblicists from the true endeavor for Admission to the Everlasting a simple belief in the existence of the Almighty will not by itself accomplish.

you fail not in believing in God but the means of accomplishing the fulfillment necessary to make your belief meaningful.

.

Those SEVEN THINGS ARE TRUE FOR ALL OF US. There's no statement in those seven things that says anything about the Bible. Put whatever meaning you want into those things that are true for YOU and ME and EVERYBODY ELSE! Do what you want with them. That's between you and God or whatever.

In other words, stop demanding that I involve myself in your personal affairs! It's not my place to tell you whether to believe or not believe that God exists.

The idea in your mind and in my mind and in everybody else's mind logically holds that He exists!

It is not possible to logically say or think that God (Creator) doesn't exist!

Hence, the decision is yours, not mine. Leave me out of it. Is that biologically hardwired fact of human cognition a mere accident, coincidence, a freak of nature; or is that biologically hardwired fact of human cognition in our minds because God does in fact exist and, therefore, is the One Who put it into our minds so that we may know that He does in fact exist?

Is that an emphatic declaration from God, Who's not interested in debating with you or arguing with you or quibbling with about His existence?

Is that biologically hardwired fact of human cognition God telling you and me and everybody else that I AM or not?

That biologically hardwired fact of human cognition reports. You decide.

 

[emilynghiem]

Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:

The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!

Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things. Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.

...
Science verifies or falsifies.

Logic proves or disproves.

Period.

Dear M.D. Rawlings:
I think you are nitpicking on terms.
Of course, if you really want to argue, then nothing can ever be proven because there is
always a chance we humans are wrong and the things could change or be proven false.

What this REALLY means is
"proving it to the people where it is accepted and agreed upon"

You can argue all day that this is still faith based.
And yes I agree that all we're really doings is assigning
"logic values" and then you can use THAT to "prove a pattern"

The problem, MD is that people don't agree to
what VALUES we are assigning to the variables in your proof!

God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds.
So they cannot follow the proof without arguing.

Once someone sees God = something false and negative
then your whole proof falls on deaf ears where you
define God = something else

So the FIRST step in presenting ANY proof to ANY audience
is to AGREE what the variables stand for.

When I speak with a Buddhist
God = may equal Wisdom

With some Christians
God = love and with some God = truth
Jesus = salvation or Jesus = justice

Since we are dealing with secular gentiles
I find that
God = truth and
Jesus = justice
works better to align with what they already believe in.

So MD the proof will VARY if you are addressing different audiences.

You may have to set the starting values
differently for some people, rather than
using only one God = generic global identity

Consider it like teaching someone to play a song "Row Row Row Your Boat"
If you are teaching the song in "key of C"
because that is the most common,
and you will reach the largest audience, fine.

What about someone who is on Saxophone.
what is WRONG with adjusting the SAME SONG
to the key of THEIR instrument so they can
play and learn the same song?

If you impose "key of C" on everyone, you miss the
instruments that aren't on that same key, and need
it to be adjusted to G.

Some people aren't using a major key
but a minor key, so that is another adjustment!

it's the same song/pattern, but for different instruments
their key and music may be different, too!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"

What's 'TAG'?

Don's trust anything G.T. tells you. He never honestly or objectively states the simple truth about the TAG as he does not have the discipline to be unbiased about the simple truth of things, and he has no respect for the right of others to make up their own minds based on the unvarnished facts of the matter. See post #2513 and the posts in the notes, and you will have the unvarnished, objective facts of the matter to make up your mind for yourself.

 

[peach174]

I think that Bob Dutko explains it really well with scientific proof of God's existence.

Scientific Evidence of God - Top Ten Proofs

In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Within it is a Conservation of Energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that while energy can convert into matter (physical “stuff”), and matter into energy, however much total “stuff” there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total “stuff” there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.
The “closed system” is a scientific term that refers to a system or an “area” that has no outside influence, like the universe. Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an “open system”, (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a “closed system”.
Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.
Plain and simple, matter/energy can not come into existence. It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities. Option A: Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, (even though science has proven that impossible). Option B: Everything in the universe has always existed for all of eternity, (which, by the way is also scientifically impossible as explained in the Top Ten Proofs for God's Existence CD due to something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), or Option C: There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to disobey them. Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics

 

[G.T.]

Pezz , M.D. Rawlings is very upset because he is a charlatan who has been exposed here.

if you dont think that I conveyed the TAG accurately, here's a link. Transcendental argument for the existence of God - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Let me know where I misled in any way, or you know.....you can see what we're talking about with justin rawlings and his snake oil.

 

[emilynghiem]

post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"

What's 'TAG'?

Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.


TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.

It states it "proves" god.

It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.

It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.

TAG goes:

1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
2. there is knowledge
3. therefore, god exists

That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."

Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.

Dear GT and also Hollie (I can't find the messsage where you also complain about
this TAG business that basically "states the conclusion" and then "challenges or insults anyone who disagrees" but I get it!)

Thanks for explaining what is TAG and of course the objections to this approach.

May I compare the process to LIKE a "contrapositive proof"
but not exactly like that: It is NOT coming up with ONE contradiction that applies to all cases
but to show that different contradictions come up in each case that all follow the same basic pattern.
It is the same process for all people, but each person has a different version of it
so it cannot be proven globally unless people recognize and accept the pattern on faith.

What Christians tend to do is state the conclusion
Then work BACKWARDS to address and resolve each objection that comes up.

Then by process of elimination, agreement is reached when all possible
conflicts are explained another way, leaving it open to either yes or no (ie agreeing we can neither
prove nor disprove God), but AT LEAST eliminating
both the "absolute yes it is proven to exist" and the "absolute no it does not exist"
by removing the emotional issues and biases causing a onesided attachment.

I explained to MD that he is trying to present the proof straightforward per se
(I called it A, just a forward proof where you take it literally)
but that MOST people follow the process I called B
where they are using his statements to work through the objections
and it is not about the proof per se, but the people's response and REASONS
for objecting. So there is a larger process AROUND the proof that is going on.

That process is not the same for all people.

You can show the Patterns, but each person has to go through their
own process to get to the understanding at the end.

The most I could do to speed up the process and get people on the same page
to show the common Pattern is to "prove Spiritual Healing by medical science" so you can see
how the process is universal, and heals a lot of people on different levels,
in different ways unique to each case, but following the same stages and patterns.

I think that would reach more people than MD logistical proof
which still applies universally but more people will follow science and what it shows,
and not the math and language he uses that only a specific audience responds to.

Can you please help me explain this to MD?

That you may not be motivated to quit rejecting and questioning the motives
of Christians using his proof, but if science were to prove spiritual healing
that Christians use to heal people of demonic sickness and voices, cancer,
drug and sexual addition and abuse, and totally change to a different person,
and that this process can apply to all people even atheists and it still works by natural science,
that would do more to get over the issues with Christians and to see there is validity to what
is taught in Christianity.

Would that help get more people on the same page?
by using science to prove something in religion is a valid universal process?