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

[G.T.]

In order to question it, you need to present a basis for said questioning.

I did, oh he who thinks he understand things.

You said: "I see no eason to believe that it is impossible for someone, or something, to know everything, but be unaware that he actually knows it."

The unawareness you describe, is knowledge they don't know hence negating their all knowingness.

Prove it, oh he who thinks axioms are real.

Try again.

After you.

Edit to add: the computer's inability to supersede its programming and access its contents is an example of knowledge that it does not know. Plus, bad example because the "all knowledge" its set to collect would necessarily include the fact that it itself contains all knowledge - therefore, it KNOWS it knows everything - or else it hasn't COLLECTED all knowledge.

Yet, if it is unable to access the fact that it has all knowledge, my point still stands. You, on the other hand, are stuck with declaring you are right, and then proclaiming that anyone who doesn't recognize that fact, is stupid, all without providing any evidence beyond your belief in the existence of axioms.

Perhaps you should read some science fiction, you might discover how limited your understanding of thought is.

You have not presented an example of where the axiom could fail.

A computer that possesses all knowledge necessarily knows it possesses all knowledge. Its access to said knowledge is irrelevant to whether or not it possesses it and knows it possesses it, you example was horrendous.

You said it collects "all knowledge."

That it then possesses "All knowledge" becomes knowledge. Does it not collect that bit? Then it doesnt even possess all knowledge. Ya rick.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thye laws of physics break down within the singularity, yes.

But I did not invoke the laws of physics.

So - time #81 or so where you argued against something I never said.

Keep going, silly. Your blood pressure can handle it I promise.

Let me get this straight, when you invoked conversation of energy to argue that the singularity contained all the energy of the universe, you didn't actually invoke it.

Good call, and a definitive proof that I was right when I said you are too stupid to understand what you are saying.

 

[G.T.]

I argue that the evidence is not conclusive, or even suggestive since it is a "choice" what you consider it evidence OF, since there remains other, also unproven or not disproven, explanations.

You argue from ignorance then.

No, actually, to assign the evidence to something without having concrete reason to.............is arguing from ignorance.

 

[G.T.]

Thye laws of physics break down within the singularity, yes.

But I did not invoke the laws of physics.

So - time #81 or so where you argued against something I never said.

Keep going, silly. Your blood pressure can handle it I promise.

Let me get this straight, when you invoked conversation of energy to argue that the singularity contained all the energy of the universe, you didn't actually invoke it.

Good call, and a definitive proof that I was right when I said you are too stupid to understand what you are saying.

keep responding, you fall more and more apart with every post, windbag.

you possess the most accurate screen-name of all of them

 

[G.T.]

Thye laws of physics break down within the singularity, yes.

But I did not invoke the laws of physics.

So - time #81 or so where you argued against something I never said.

Keep going, silly. Your blood pressure can handle it I promise.

Let me get this straight, when you invoked conversation of energy to argue that the singularity contained all the energy of the universe, you didn't actually invoke it.

Good call, and a definitive proof that I was right when I said you are too stupid to understand what you are saying.

also - way to ignore that the singularity's origins are unknown, which is in effect the POINT.

You NEED to bloviate and dance in order to ignore the essence, AS ALWAYS, you're WINDBAG.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not invoking the law that energy cannot be created n'or destroyed.

I'm invoking the fact that the gravity of the universe was once a singularity - *but* said singularity's age & origin is not yet determined.

Keep trying.

The issue here is your claim that the singularity is eternal. FYI, eternal means without beginning or end. I don't need to provide any evidence of the origin of the singularity to disprove your claim, all I have to do is point at the existence of the universe.

The singularity is not eternal, and never was. Just admit you used the wrong word and move on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have not presented an example of where the axiom could fail.

A computer that possesses all knowledge necessarily knows it possesses all knowledge. Its access to said knowledge is irrelevant to whether or not it possesses it and knows it possesses it, you example was horrendous.

You said it collects "all knowledge."

That it then possesses "All knowledge" becomes knowledge. Does it not collect that bit? Then it doesnt even possess all knowledge. Ya rick.

Dayam.

You really have a problem with English, don't you?

 

[G.T.]

I'm not invoking the law that energy cannot be created n'or destroyed.

I'm invoking the fact that the gravity of the universe was once a singularity - *but* said singularity's age & origin is not yet determined.

Keep trying.

The issue here is your claim that the singularity is eternal. FYI, eternal means without beginning or end. I don't need to provide any evidence of the origin of the singularity to disprove your claim, all I have to do is point at the existence of the universe.

The singularity is not eternal, and never was. Just admit you used the wrong word and move on.

I admit you're a douchey prick and knew I just meant the beginning which was obvious by the surrounding text and the context of the conversation, but your OCD forced you to quibble over the meaninglessness because THATS WHAT YOU DO.

 

[G.T.]

You have not presented an example of where the axiom could fail.

A computer that possesses all knowledge necessarily knows it possesses all knowledge. Its access to said knowledge is irrelevant to whether or not it possesses it and knows it possesses it, you example was horrendous.

You said it collects "all knowledge."

That it then possesses "All knowledge" becomes knowledge. Does it not collect that bit? Then it doesnt even possess all knowledge. Ya rick.

Dayam.

You really have a problem with English, don't you?

I think you don't know what all knowing means. Which is sort of a good reason to deflect, here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

also - way to ignore that the singularity's origins are unknown, which is in effect the POINT.

How the fuck is that the point? The point is that it is not eternal, oh he who says stupid things and then blames others for them.

You NEED to bloviate and dance in order to ignore the essence, AS ALWAYS, you're WINDBAG.

Actually, since you are the one that made the idiotic claim that the singularity might be eternal, you are the one doing everything you are accusing me of?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I admit you're a douchey prick and knew I just meant the beginning which was obvious by the surrounding text and the context of the conversation, but your OCD forced you to quibble over the meaninglessness because THATS WHAT YOU DO.

Even if that is what you meant, you used a word that meant something else.

 

[G.T.]

I admit you're a douchey prick and knew I just meant the beginning which was obvious by the surrounding text and the context of the conversation, but your OCD forced you to quibble over the meaninglessness because THATS WHAT YOU DO.

Even if that is what you meant, you used a word that meant something else.

It was obvious to anyone who knew we were talking about the origins of everything. Dick.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think you don't know what all knowing means. Which is sort of a good reason to deflect, here.

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything, just like the computer I described.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It was obvious to anyone who knew we were talking about the origins of everything. Dick.

Yet you used a word that means without beginning or end.

Lack of an education in English might explain that.

 

[G.T.]

I think you don't know what all knowing means. Which is sort of a good reason to deflect, here.

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything, just like the computer I described.

"The capacity to"

is a distinction you're drawing.

I didnt say that, this is an axiom I presented. I was not invoking the bible.


I said, "an all knower necessarily has to KNOW it is all knowing."

The contrary is impossible.

When you say that the computer has all knowledge, the computer knows it has all kowledge -

OR IT DOESNT HAVE THAT PIECE OF KNOWLEDGE AND ISNT ALL KNOWING.


I'll await a better example of how it could be false. My mind's open................you just need the ability. G'luck.

 

[G.T.]

It was obvious to anyone who knew we were talking about the origins of everything. Dick.

Yet you used a word that means without beginning or end.

Lack of an education in English might explain that.

or being casual in conversation with an asshole who knows or should know what ya meant but theyre hell bent on being an asshole

 

[Justin Davis]

That you admit that concrete proof for the existence of or not of deity is all that matters to me, guys. You can dance on the head of a pin all you want: go for it.

Now having made sure we are all on the same sheet of music, I am a believer in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He calls me by my first name and I call Him Lord. Although Satan knows your name, some of you are letting it call you by your addictions, where as Jesus, who always knows your addictions (consider our radical atheists), calls you by your name.

Thanks for the opportunity to share, folks

Shut up, you idiot. You have concrete evidence, beginning with the universe itself and it's contents, including the things in your pin head that everybody knows: objectively, universally and absolutely, dummy. You don't care about concrete evidence at all.

Yours is the stuff of a purely academic substance that amounts to nothing more than a propositionally justifiable objection, which, of course, is not justifiable knowledge, as such is not explicable or demonstrable. And like others, you still don't understand what evidence and proof and knowledge are. In the meantime, every piece of the evidence for God's existence is justifiable knowledge: demonstrably, authoritatively and intuitively, you dope.

All the OP is saying is that the arguments fail because of an academic distinction that makes no difference to the fact that the premises are verified and the conclusions are valid, only not really because it's doubtful the OP grasps anything of things you've shown.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

That you admit that concrete proof for the existence of or not of deity is all that matters to me, guys. You can dance on the head of a pin all you want: go for it.

Now having made sure we are all on the same sheet of music, I am a believer in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He calls me by my first name and I call Him Lord. Although Satan knows your name, some of you are letting it call you by your addictions, where as Jesus, who always knows your addictions (consider our radical atheists), calls you by your name.

Thanks for the opportunity to share, folks

Shut up, you idiot. You have concrete evidence, beginning with the universe itself and it's contents, including the things in your pin head that everybody knows: objectively, universally and absolutely, dummy. You don't care about concrete evidence at all.

Yours is the stuff of a purely academic substance that amounts to nothing more than a propositionally justifiable objection, which, of course, is not justifiable knowledge, as such is not explicable or demonstrable. And like others, you still don't understand what evidence and proof and knowledge are. In the meantime, every piece of the evidence for God's existence is justifiable knowledge: demonstrably, authoritatively and intuitively, you dope.

All the OP is saying is that the arguments fail because of an academic distinction that makes no difference to the fact that the premises are verified and the conclusions are valid, only not really because it's doubtful the OP grasps anything of things you've shown.

Yeah, if. What's sad is that newpolitics is under the impression that "all the great minds" somehow missed, in terms of justifiable knowledge, the understanding of propositionally justifiable objections. He does not grasp what I've shown on this thread.

Yes. The premises are absolutely verified, independently and objectively!

All that's going on in the post-modern world today is the baby talk of ignoramuses who do not realize that the classical arguments are as solid as a rock. There is no argument that can lay a finger on them in terms of justifiable knowledge and the rules of formal logic. They are objectively valid in our minds! The only objection is the academic objection: These theorems might not be valid outside of our minds. Once again, okay. Prove it!

What do they have?

*crickets chirping*

The arguments have objectively established, justifiable knowledge on their side. Atheism is a negative. In the face of these things there's no there, there. The burden of proof has never been on the assertion of theism. That's unmitigated hokum from drooling children.

 

[Justin Davis]

That you admit that concrete proof for the existence of or not of deity is all that matters to me, guys. You can dance on the head of a pin all you want: go for it.

Now having made sure we are all on the same sheet of music, I am a believer in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He calls me by my first name and I call Him Lord. Although Satan knows your name, some of you are letting it call you by your addictions, where as Jesus, who always knows your addictions (consider our radical atheists), calls you by your name.

Thanks for the opportunity to share, folks

Shut up, you idiot. You have concrete evidence, beginning with the universe itself and it's contents, including the things in your pin head that everybody knows: objectively, universally and absolutely, dummy. You don't care about concrete evidence at all.

Yours is the stuff of a purely academic substance that amounts to nothing more than a propositionally justifiable objection, which, of course, is not justifiable knowledge, as such is not explicable or demonstrable. And like others, you still don't understand what evidence and proof and knowledge are. In the meantime, every piece of the evidence for God's existence is justifiable knowledge: demonstrably, authoritatively and intuitively, you dope.

All the OP is saying is that the arguments fail because of an academic distinction that makes no difference to the fact that the premises are verified and the conclusions are valid, only not really because it's doubtful the OP grasps anything of things you've shown.

Yeah, if. What's sad is that newpolitics is under the impression that "all the great minds" somehow missed, in terms of justifiable knowledge, the understanding of propositionally justifiable objections. He does not grasp what I've shown on this thread.

Yes. The premises are absolutely verified, independently and objectively!

All that's going on in the post-modern world today is the baby talk of ignoramuses who do not realize that the classical arguments are as solid as a rock. There is no argument that can lay a finger on them in terms of justifiable knowledge and the rules of formal logic. They are objectively valid in our minds! The only objection is the academic objection: These theorems might not be valid outside of our minds. Once again, okay. Prove it!

What do they have?

*crickets chirping*

The arguments have objectively established, justifiable knowledge on their side. Atheism is a negative. In the face of these things there's no there, there. The burden of proof has never been on the assertion of theism. That's unmitigated hokum from drooling children.

This has got to be screwing up science if materialists are imposing their metaphysical assumption on their findings while corrupting the conventions justifiable knowledge.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

That you admit that concrete proof for the existence of or not of deity is all that matters to me, guys. You can dance on the head of a pin all you want: go for it.

Now having made sure we are all on the same sheet of music, I am a believer in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He calls me by my first name and I call Him Lord. Although Satan knows your name, some of you are letting it call you by your addictions, where as Jesus, who always knows your addictions (consider our radical atheists), calls you by your name.

Thanks for the opportunity to share, folks

Shut up, you idiot. You have concrete evidence, beginning with the universe itself and it's contents, including the things in your pin head that everybody knows: objectively, universally and absolutely, dummy. You don't care about concrete evidence at all.

Yours is the stuff of a purely academic substance that amounts to nothing more than a propositionally justifiable objection, which, of course, is not justifiable knowledge, as such is not explicable or demonstrable. And like others, you still don't understand what evidence and proof and knowledge are. In the meantime, every piece of the evidence for God's existence is justifiable knowledge: demonstrably, authoritatively and intuitively, you dope.

All the OP is saying is that the arguments fail because of an academic distinction that makes no difference to the fact that the premises are verified and the conclusions are valid, only not really because it's doubtful the OP grasps anything of things you've shown.

Yeah, if. What's sad is that newpolitics is under the impression that "all the great minds" somehow missed, in terms of justifiable knowledge, the understanding of propositionally justifiable objections. He does not grasp what I've shown on this thread.

Yes. The premises are absolutely verified, independently and objectively!

All that's going on in the post-modern world today is the baby talk of ignoramuses who do not realize that the classical arguments are as solid as a rock. There is no argument that can lay a finger on them in terms of justifiable knowledge and the rules of formal logic. They are objectively valid in our minds! The only objection is the academic objection: These theorems might not be valid outside of our minds. Once again, okay. Prove it!

What do they have?

*crickets chirping*

The arguments have objectively established, justifiable knowledge on their side. Atheism is a negative. In the face of these things there's no there, there. The burden of proof has never been on the assertion of theism. That's unmitigated hokum from drooling children.

This has got to be screwing up science if materialists are imposing their metaphysical assumption on their findings while corrupting the conventions justifiable knowledge.

It is. But not so much the hard sciences as we have both mathematics and well-established methods of gauging the behavior of phenomena. They do this or that. Ironically, it’s in the sciences closer to home, i.e., the life sciences, that are being badly distorted.