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

[PratchettFan]

I get you now. And this is fine so long as the outcome really doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what you mean by outcome. I don't see knowledge as necessarily requiring any outcome as much knowledge involves a journey of discovery that we are still on with no outcome yet in sight.

If you are sitting in a seat on an airliner about to take off from New York to London, don't you think the fact the pilot can demonstrate his knowledge there is sufficient fuel to make the trip is a bit important? If you are about to grab an exposed electrical wire, wouldn't you think your ability to demonstrate it isn't live might impact your future in some way? If there is no outcome to this claim of knowledge, then I suppose it really doesn't matter whether you can demonstrate it or not. But that is often not the case. When it matters, you need to be able to demonstrate.

Sigh. I thought we had reached an understanding of the difference between demonstrability and knowledge that is not demonstrable.

Unless you witnessed or participated in the fueling of the airplane and have the knowledge to know how much fuel is required to go X miles under X conditions, you are taking on pure faith that there is sufficient fuel to get you to your destination or that the plane is capable of utilizing it and getting you there for that matter. The ONLY way the pilot could DEMONSTRATE that to you is by removing the fuel, showing it to you, and then have you watch him put it back into the plane and then in fact flying you to your destination.

The pilot's testimony about the fuel is a form of evidence and, if you trust the pilot to give you accurate information about that, it will be considered credible evidence.

You possess both knowledge and evidence that it is likely, within a high degree of mathematical probability, that the airplane will take you safely to your destination. But there is no way to demonstrate that until the flight happens.

There is no telescope capable of allowing us to see planets in other solar systems. Scientists deduct they are there via differentiations in light emitting from other solar systems. That is both scientifically calculated and definitely a form of evidence of what they conclude are planets that exist out there, and it is knowledge. But we have absolutely no way to DEMONSTRATE that they are in fact identifying planets by that method.

No. We have not reached an understanding. There is a difference between my not demonstrating my knowledge to you and my being unable to demonstrate it, which is what I believe you meant with Aristotle. So long as the knowledge itself is of no real consequence, this is fine. But if it matters, then it must be demonstrable. You can think you know about God without demonstrating it because it just doesn't matter, but you have to demonstrate you know how to operate a car to get a license, because that does.

Okay. So we don't have an understanding. I know a great deal of knowledge that is of major, even critical, consequence that I cannot demonstrate to a single other soul and so do you. But some are unable to grasp the concept I guess. I won't accuse you of being in the deliberately obtuse and intentionally disruptive group, but I gave the explanation my best shot. I don't know if the failure to understand is in your inability to understand or whether I am a shitty teacher. But either way we tried.

Oh no. I grasp the concept. I really do. I just think you're wrong.

 

[Justin Davis]

Food for thought: when you say things like "god is necessary for knowledge to exist," it appears as though you believe you've proven in the ultimate absolute sense that god even exists.

So forgive those who think you've been deluded into thinking that you're able to prove god in the ultimate absolute sense.

So the people who have told you from the beginning, and told you again and again after that all through this discussion, that God's existence cannot be proven in the sense that you're talking about and have exhaustively explained to you what things like evidence, proofs and knowledge are, are to blame for your ignorance?

Just curious, are you still operating under the impression that the premises of the classical arguments have not been objectively and independently verified? Do you still not understand that your distinction, which we have always been cognizant of, is academically moot?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Oh no. I grasp the concept. I really do. I just think you're wrong.

. . . he boorishly quipped for the zillionth time, once again, without a shred objective evidence.

 

[G.T.]

@Justin Davis

Which argument, and which premise?

Let's do it one by one.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh no. I grasp the concept. I really do. I just think you're wrong.

. . . he boorishly quipped for the zillionth time, once again, without a shred objective evidence.

Without a shred of ANY evidence period.. He refuses to acknowledge the illustrations provided--illustrations a third grader could easily understand--and has yet to come up with a single appropriately focused rationale or objective illustration of his own to support his point of view. He has given me a glimmer of hope that he finally got it a couple of times, and then when I acknowledged that, he says he wasn't agreeing with me and sees it entirely differently. But he can't or won't explain or illustrate what that difference is. LOL. I can't recall ever having a student like that in one of my classes, but if I did, I think I would suggest he or she might be more interested in another subject.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Food for thought: when you say things like "god is necessary for knowledge to exist," it appears as though you believe you've proven in the ultimate absolute sense that god even exists.

So forgive those who think you've been deluded into thinking that you're able to prove god in the ultimate absolute sense.

So the people who have told you from the beginning, and told you again and again after that all through this discussion, that God's existence cannot be proven in the sense that you're talking about and have exhaustively explained to you what things like evidence, proofs and knowledge are, are to blame for your ignorance?

Just curious, are you still operating under the impression that the premises of the classical arguments have not been objectively and independently verified? Do you still not understand that your distinction, which we have always been cognizant of, is academically moot?

It's the atheist and, apparently, the uneducable theists on this thread who routinely slam the door of their minds, not only on the larger philosophical and theological considerations, but even on the pertinent scientific implications!

It has been these on this thread who have imagined that the assertion of theism is the stuff of mere blind faith even after is has been incontrovertibly shown just how stupid that allegation is! Yet these are the very same people who claim to know all kinds of things well beyond what any of the rest of us have ever even imagined we could prove in any way, shape or form! The rational connotations of objectively don't exist! (Forget about the fact that scientists are in search of the physiological-neurological basis for the manifest universality of humanity's apprehension of a number of certain absolutes.) The universe is not evidence for a sentient first cause! The existence of the universe axiomatically proves atheism! (In truth, the atheists on this thread are still scratching their heads over my counter to that silliness, you know, their utterly empty slogan, the substance of which is beyond subjective, but resides somewhere in the Twilight Zone.) Theism doesn't have an epistemological leg to stand on! The objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the problem of origin, which everybody knows or may know the moment they open their eyes, don't exist! The fact that science itself necessarily rests on a metaphysical presupposition of one kind or another isn't true! Demonstrable knowledge is necessarily physical! We can do science without non-demonstrable knowledge! Inexplicable/indemonstrable, academic distinctions (analytical dead ends) carry more weight than well-established justifiable knowledge! All of the arguments for God's existence fail! (Oh? Well, I've shown that one of them pushes the more sensible materialists of professional standing to the brink of this universe and beyond. Of course the know-nothing atheists on this forum don't grasp that or why that's so. And that's just one of the arguments.)

None of these on this thread grasp what the nature of the classical arguments for God's existence is because they've never thought them through, let alone objectively considered them on their own terms.

What the hell does the typical atheist or the rabidly ignorant theist know about objectivity, anyway?

The fact of the matter is that all we've gotten from the know-nothings on this thread is subjective mush. They want to talk about everything else but that which is objectively pertinent.

In the meantime, the learned theist considers all the evidence without prejudice, and is a theist precisely because he knows that the preponderance of the whole evidence overwhelming refutes the notion of a mindless origin.

This former atheist, yours truly, knows that the preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that God must be. What the hell was I thinking thirty years ago? I wasn't thinking about the whole of the evidence, that's what. What a damn fool I was.

 

[ninja007]

the sad thing is when these unbelievers realize the truth, it will be too late.

 

[dblack]

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Oh no. I grasp the concept. I really do. I just think you're wrong.

. . . he boorishly quipped for the zillionth time, once again, without a shred objective evidence.

Without a shred of ANY evidence period.. He refuses to acknowledge the illustrations provided--illustrations a third grader could easily understand--and has yet to come up with a single appropriately focused rationale or objective illustration of his own to support his point of view. He has given me a glimmer of hope that he finally got it a couple of times, and then when I acknowledged that, he says he wasn't agreeing with me and sees it entirely differently. But he can't or won't explain or illustrate what that difference is. LOL. I can't recall ever having a student like that in one of my classes, but if I did, I think I would suggest he or she might be more interested in another subject.

As I suggested before, although it was Justin, I think, who first zeroed in on his problem: until he wraps his head around the more general, unabridged connotations of objectively, all we're ever going to get from him is subjective mush; after all, how do you fix someone who thinks we can do science without non-demonstrable knowledge? It would be funny, well, it still is, kind of, if it weren't so tragic.

Look, you're talking to a person who goes on and on about objective evidence as he argues classical skepticism! Aristotle, the man who is arguably the most important logician in history with regard to the developmental foundation for the modern scientific method, refuted the Skeptics who essentially argued that credible scientific knowledge wasn't possible. PFan thinks he's an empirical realist! LOL! He thinks he's Aristotle, if you get my meaning, and we're the Skeptics of guess work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"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.

We both agree you said that, the problem is I disagree with your assertion that universal truths, AKA axioms, exist outside the imagination of philosophers. You don't like the fact that I actually came up with an example that disproves your axiom, so you are claiming your belief in a concept trumps the reality that you cannot prove universal truths exist.

I won't wait for you to prove your assertion because we both know you cannot, nor will I wait for you to admit you cannot prove it because, again, we both know you won't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Newsflash, idiot, I never claimed the ability to read minds, all I can do is read what you wrote. You tried to argue that the singularity could be eternal, which is demonstrably false. When I pointed out you were wrong you tried to argue that the singularity was subject to the laws of physics, and suddenly discovered I knew enough to debunk that claim. You then claimed you didn't actually say that, even though it is what you meant. When I pointed out how absurd that was you switched to trying to argue you were saying that there is no evidence the singularity had a beginning.

Funny that you didn't just take that position from the beginning, isn't it? Why did you wait for me to show you how stupid every possible defense you could muster is before you settled on the fact that I should be able to read your mind?

 

[G.T.]

"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.

We both agree you said that, the problem is I disagree with your assertion that universal truths, AKA axioms, exist outside the imagination of philosophers. You don't like the fact that I actually came up with an example that disproves your axiom, so you are claiming your belief in a concept trumps the reality that you cannot prove universal truths exist.

I won't wait for you to prove your assertion because we both know you cannot, nor will I wait for you to admit you cannot prove it because, again, we both know you won't.

Umm.your example didn't disprove it.

Your example was inept and I proved how.

Oy vey

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Yet more ill-educated mush.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Science has proven that free will exists, which means that the choices we make are not hardwired into our brains. That means that something beyond the physical confines of the brain allows us to do things that nothing in biological makeup can explain.

While passionate academic disagreement can be quite interesting, and even entertaining at times, it doesn't help us much in our everyday lives. So, do we have the power to influence our brains or not? Obviously, Dr. Schwartz and I believe that we do have the ability to harness the power of focused attention to change our brain in ways that are healthy and beneficial to us. Even more to the point, many of the thoughts, impulses, urges and sensations we experience do not reflect who we are or the life we want to live. These false missives are not true representations of us, but rather are inaccurate, and highly deceptive, brain messages.

Recognizing this fact, you likely will rapidly begin to see all the places where your brain is less than helpful - where it is working against you and your true goals and values in life. When you think about the brain and how it is structured, it makes sense. The brain's chief job is to keep you alive, so it tends to operate in a survival of the fittest mode. While that's certainly imperative when dealing with life-threatening situations, that approach does not help us much in society or in our relationships. Rather, it often gets us into trouble and cause us to act in ways we later regret. In short, the brain likely has run your life in a less than optimal way and caused you to experience one or more of the following at some point in your life: anxiety, self-doubt, perfectionism, behaving in ways or engaging in habits that are not good for you (e.g., over-texting, over-analyzing, stress eating, drinking too much and so on), ignoring your true self and/or wholeheartedly believing the stream of negative thoughts coursing through your head.

You Are Not Your Brain Psychology Today

It is possible to overcome the "programming" that leads us into behavior we want to change, even when science can document physical changes to the brain that would, if we were just our brains, make such a change impossible.

Sometimes the neural level of explanation is appropriate. When scientists develop diagnostic tests or a medications for, say, Alzheimer's disease, they investigate the hallmarks of the condition: amyloid plaques that disrupt communication between neurons, and neurofibrillary tangles that degrade them.

Other times, a neural explanation can lead us astray. In my own field of addiction psychiatry, neurocentrism is ascendant -- and not for the better. Thanks to heavy promotion by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, addiction has been labeled a "brain disease."

The logic for this designation, as explained by former director Alan I. Leshner, is that "addiction is tied to changes in brain structure and function." True enough, repeated use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and alcohol alter the neural circuits that mediate the experience of pleasure as well as motivation, memory, inhibition, and planning -- modifications that we can often see on brain scans.

The critical question, though, is whether this neural disruption proves that the addict's behavior is involuntary and that he is incapable of self-control. It does not.

Take the case of actor Robert Downey, Jr., whose name was once synonymous with celebrity addiction. He said, "It's like I have a loaded gun in my mouth and my finger's on the trigger, and I like the taste of gunmetal." Downey went though episodes of rehabilitation and then relapse, but ultimately decided, while in the throes of "brain disease," to change his life.

Distinguishing Brain From Mind - The Atlantic

As for a soul, since the Bible defines soul as anything that is alive, I am pretty sure your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of soul.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm.your example didn't disprove it.

Your example was inept and I proved how.

Oy vey

Yet it did, you just refuse to accept that you are wrong.

 

[G.T.]

Umm.your example didn't disprove it.

Your example was inept and I proved how.

Oy vey

Yet it did, you just refuse to accept that you are wrong.

You're just retarded.

If a computer collects "all knowledge, " as you had suggested -

Then it IS KNOWLEDGE that said computer collects all knowledge.

Therefore, by the glory of Allah, the computer also knows it is all knowing.....dipshit.

Your example was dumb as fuck. Try again.

 

[dblack]

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Science has proven that free will exists, which means that the choices we make are not hardwired into our brains.

From my readings "science" hasn't even figured out what 'free will' is supposed to mean, so I'm curious what you mean by that...

 

[dblack]

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Yet more ill-educated mush.

Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?

 

[Justin Davis]

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Science has proven that free will exists, which means that the choices we make are not hardwired into our brains. That means that something beyond the physical confines of the brain allows us to do things that nothing in biological makeup can explain.

While passionate academic disagreement can be quite interesting, and even entertaining at times, it doesn't help us much in our everyday lives. So, do we have the power to influence our brains or not? Obviously, Dr. Schwartz and I believe that we do have the ability to harness the power of focused attention to change our brain in ways that are healthy and beneficial to us. Even more to the point, many of the thoughts, impulses, urges and sensations we experience do not reflect who we are or the life we want to live. These false missives are not true representations of us, but rather are inaccurate, and highly deceptive, brain messages.

Recognizing this fact, you likely will rapidly begin to see all the places where your brain is less than helpful - where it is working against you and your true goals and values in life. When you think about the brain and how it is structured, it makes sense. The brain's chief job is to keep you alive, so it tends to operate in a survival of the fittest mode. While that's certainly imperative when dealing with life-threatening situations, that approach does not help us much in society or in our relationships. Rather, it often gets us into trouble and cause us to act in ways we later regret. In short, the brain likely has run your life in a less than optimal way and caused you to experience one or more of the following at some point in your life: anxiety, self-doubt, perfectionism, behaving in ways or engaging in habits that are not good for you (e.g., over-texting, over-analyzing, stress eating, drinking too much and so on), ignoring your true self and/or wholeheartedly believing the stream of negative thoughts coursing through your head.

You Are Not Your Brain Psychology Today

It is possible to overcome the "programming" that leads us into behavior we want to change, even when science can document physical changes to the brain that would, if we were just our brains, make such a change impossible.

Sometimes the neural level of explanation is appropriate. When scientists develop diagnostic tests or a medications for, say, Alzheimer's disease, they investigate the hallmarks of the condition: amyloid plaques that disrupt communication between neurons, and neurofibrillary tangles that degrade them.

Other times, a neural explanation can lead us astray. In my own field of addiction psychiatry, neurocentrism is ascendant -- and not for the better. Thanks to heavy promotion by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, addiction has been labeled a "brain disease."

The logic for this designation, as explained by former director Alan I. Leshner, is that "addiction is tied to changes in brain structure and function." True enough, repeated use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and alcohol alter the neural circuits that mediate the experience of pleasure as well as motivation, memory, inhibition, and planning -- modifications that we can often see on brain scans.

The critical question, though, is whether this neural disruption proves that the addict's behavior is involuntary and that he is incapable of self-control. It does not.

Take the case of actor Robert Downey, Jr., whose name was once synonymous with celebrity addiction. He said, "It's like I have a loaded gun in my mouth and my finger's on the trigger, and I like the taste of gunmetal." Downey went though episodes of rehabilitation and then relapse, but ultimately decided, while in the throes of "brain disease," to change his life.

Distinguishing Brain From Mind - The Atlantic

As for a soul, since the Bible defines soul as anything that is alive, I am pretty sure your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of soul.

Many years ago, a heavy drinker, a polite description, I chose to change my life. I simply stopped drinking, cold turkey, and after awhile, oh, after several months or so of not feeding that altered neural circuitry, the urge faded away. I didn't do AA or anything of that kind. I merely looked at my wife and my kids one day after an especially blurry-eyed morning and said enough! That was the first time I knew that all the talk about "brain disease" and the like in the materialistic sense was hokum. That was the beginning of my search for God.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Yet more ill-educated mush.

Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?

Don't have to. Science already has. The literature's readily available. Even a growing number of materialist philosophers in the face of scientific advances in this area and careful thought about the problem of qualia concede that at the very least the whole is greater than the sum of the neurological system's parts. If you're asking me do I believe that there is a corresponding, physiological-neurological infrastructure that provides for a material basis for the obvious, universally shared apprehensions of human cognition. Yes. I believe that too. The real question now is not whether or not there be an "operator" above the physiological level of being, but what is the precise substance the operator is composed of.

But what I actually had in mind when I made that comment was whether or not the universe and your very own self-awareness were merely a figment of your imagination with regard to the supposed lack of evidence for the existence of God or the human soul.