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

[M.D. Rawlings]

The same evidence is concrete for any "origins" theory.

Because we're discussing its origin, it BEING HERE AT ALL is evidence of what or however it originated.

If at all, it could be eternal.

Other than the fact that science has pretty conclusively established that the universe is not eternal you have a pretty good point, for an idiot.

Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.

It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.

And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.

I just noticed this when I took a peak at your exchange with QW about the notion of someone having all knowledge without having the knowledge that it has all knowledge, which is inherently contradictory, though obviously such a thing can be imagined. I just did that. I can also imagine that two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference (you know, like I just did about an all-knowing someone who is simultaneously not all-knowing), but I can't "un-absurd" what I imagined. It is axiomatic that such a thing is logically absurd and can be reasonably rejected as having any value whatsoever in terms of justifiable knowledge.

I'm also not clear on what QW is asserting about the all knower, but the major premise in the transcendental argument cannot be logically refuted, as it is impossible to refute it without presupposing it to be true. It would only be due to a lack of thought that one would fail to understand that.

In any event, your expression about the understanding that science has not determined whether or not time, as we understand it, has always existed is odd. Just cut to the chase. If the singularity were eternal, I wouldn't be writing this post, because I wouldn't exist. I don't see why you're faulting QW, who, presumably, in the posts above this had a problem with the original expression of the idea you're after.

You imagined it, but won't describe it?

Odd, that.

You let me know how an all knower could not KNOW that it is all knowing, in your imagination, or I'll take it as a concession.

But if it doesnt know its all knowing, thats a piece of knowledge it doesnt posess thus its no longer even an all knower. hurr dee durr durr durr

Also - let's do these premises one at a time.

Which premise cannot be logically refuted? Also - make sure it's also PROVEN, ABSOLUTELY, before you're asking for refutation. Because then, it's not even necessary to refute because it's merely an assertion.

You misread my post. I don't disagree with you . . . assuming you're talking about God, not an artificial intelligence or a computer programed to "believe" that the knowledge it possesses at any given moment = all knowledge.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think you may have missed the point of my comment. I was highlighting that, however you assess the evidence of the existence of gods, it's approximately the same kind of evidence as the evidence of our own existence. When I say "our own existence", I'm talking about he existence of consciousness, not our bodies or even our brains, but the thing we think of as 'self'. I'm actually making the case here that gods are every bit as real as human minds.

The problem with scientist attempting to find evidence of things like 'free will' is that they don't even know what they mean by the term, and they haven't done the work to clarify it to the point that any meaningful evidence could be collected. The article hints at the real problems involved, pointing that neither pure deterministic behavior, nor random chance, seems to satisfy our notion of 'free will', but without any justification they conclude that it must be a mix of the two(?). But I don't see how some randomness and some determinism is meaningful, or gets us any closer to free will. And of course the problem is, that our conception of free will is simply in coherent. And we have to sort that out first.

I agree with all of this. I'm not sure science can explain the matter, but theology can and has. That's my only point, and I doubt you would be open to understanding or accepting that assertion because in your first paragraph you assert something to be true without providing an absolute foundation on which we may be certain that it is true outside of our minds.

 

[dblack]

I think you may have missed the point of my comment. I was highlighting that, however you assess the evidence of the existence of gods, it's approximately the same kind of evidence as the evidence of our own existence. When I say "our own existence", I'm talking about he existence of consciousness, not our bodies or even our brains, but the thing we think of as 'self'. I'm actually making the case here that gods are every bit as real as human minds.

I agree with all of this. I'm not sure science can explain the matter, but theology can and has. That's my only point, and I doubt you would be open to understanding or accepting that assertion because in your first paragraph you assert something to be true without providing an absolute foundation on which we may be certain that it is true outside of our minds.

What part? Which assertion? What, in your view, would suffice as that foundation?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think you may have missed the point of my comment. I was highlighting that, however you assess the evidence of the existence of gods, it's approximately the same kind of evidence as the evidence of our own existence. When I say "our own existence", I'm talking about he existence of consciousness, not our bodies or even our brains, but the thing we think of as 'self'. I'm actually making the case here that gods are every bit as real as human minds.

I agree with all of this. I'm not sure science can explain the matter, but theology can and has. That's my only point, and I doubt you would be open to understanding or accepting that assertion because in your first paragraph you assert something to be true without providing an absolute foundation on which we may be certain that it is true outside of our minds.

What part? Which assertion? What, in your view, would suffice as that foundation?

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear. I was referring to free will.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'm asserting something.

I'm asserting that whether or not an omniscient god exists, in THIS UNIVERSE, an all knower cannot not know it is all knowing.

And that is axiomatic knowledge.

Actually, it isn't because I am questioning it. If axiomatic really worked the way you think you would have to accept Rawling's axioms with the same lack of thought you apply to yours. I see no reason to believe that it is impossible for someone, or something, to know everything, but be unaware that he actually knows it. A good example of this would be some type of computer program that is charged with gathering all possible knowledge, but is unable to access the data it collects.

If you can provide some actual argument in defense of your "axiomatic knowledge" feel free. If not, feel free to simply declare victory.

But in order for one to know everything, wouldn't one necessarily know that one knew everything? It appears that you're leaving something out of everything.

 

[Foxfyre]

(responding to MDR):

I think you may have missed the point of my comment. I was highlighting that, however you assess the evidence of the existence of gods, it's approximately the same kind of evidence as the evidence of our own existence. When I say "our own existence", I'm talking about he existence of consciousness, not our bodies or even our brains, but the thing we think of as 'self'. I'm actually making the case here that gods are every bit as real as human minds.

The problem with scientist attempting to find evidence of things like 'free will' is that they don't even know what they mean by the term, and they haven't done the work to clarify it to the point that any meaningful evidence could be collected. The article hints at the real problems involved, pointing that neither pure deterministic behavior, nor random chance, seems to satisfy our notion of 'free will', but without any justification they conclude that it must be a mix of the two(?). But I don't see how some randomness and some determinism is meaningful, or gets us any closer to free will. And of course the problem is, that our conception of free will is simply in coherent. And we have to sort that out first.

And here we have an example of knowledge that is not demonstrable. You have knowledge of a concept called 'free will' but it is neither testable, falsifiable, or demonstrable. For me--going back to the not-making-things-harder-than-they-have-to-be school of logic--it is all quite simple. We don't have to understand it or even be able to define it to know that the mind/soul exists and at least partially know how it expresses itself. We can identify and sometimes treat various mental impairment or disorders but no one can demonstrate whether the mind/soul ceases to exist in cases of extreme brain damage or whether it continues but is no longer able to utilize the damaged body/brain that it was using to express itself.

And then we get down to the various concepts.
1. Are we somehow pre-programmed via our DNA so that our every thought, physical response, and action is already determined from the moment of conceptions and there is nothing we can do to alter that? The thing we call mind/soul instinctively rejects that concept, but of course that could be part of the programming. Which does beg the question: is there then a programmer?

2. Are we being manipulated by some kind of invisible marionette strings to go through some kind of weird cosmic puppet show for the amusement or purpose of some being out there? We are helpless to resist whatever the puppeteer determines will happen according to some kind of script? Some who believe in God believe that he does know every single thing that will happen for all eternity which would in fact put us into that puppet show--if everything is already known than it is already scripted and we are powerless to change it. But for most of us, that thing we call mind/soul rejects that concept too because we either don't believe in a puppeteer or our experience with God informs us that we ourselves choose between good and evil.

3. Which, via empirical experience, logic, reason, and ability to discern, we accept that we have a mind/soul that is able to reason, to understand, to accept, to reject, to choose, to go against its own nature, and to grow and develop and improve and expand in knowledge. And while some will succumb to indoctrination and coercion and brain washing and status quo, some have ability to think outside the box and reject the conventional wisdom and see that there are better and different ways to think, to understand, to explore, to be.

And that, is the basic definition of free will. That which we are and choose to be apart from what any others or any God ordains that we should or must be.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.

This statement of yours is the first coherently and logically valid thing I've read from you on this issue . . . assuming, of course, that your talking about an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.

*crickets chirping*

Nope.

I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point.

Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge.

But in order for your absolute to logically stand against any objection but the purely academic objection it would necessarily have to be an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist. So in fact you are talking about that very thing.

 

[G.T.]

I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.

This statement of yours is the first coherently and logically valid thing I've read from you on this issue . . . assuming, of course, that your talking about an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.

*crickets chirping*

Nope.

I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point.

Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge.

But in order for your absolute to logically stand against any objection but the purely academic objection it would necessarily have to be an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist. So in fact you are talking about that very thing.

No, I don't agree.

All it takes to defeat any logical objections to my absolute, is to establish that a knower exists. All it takes is one.

I posit that I'm one, I cannot prove that you exist but I'd venture to guess you're one too.

I also don't agree that there is DEFINITELY an independently eternal and self subsistent uncaused cause of all other things -

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Actually, it isn't because I am questioning it. If axiomatic really worked the way you think you would have to accept Rawling's axioms with the same lack of thought you apply to yours. I see no reason to believe that it is impossible for someone, or something, to know everything, but be unaware that he actually knows it. A good example of this would be some type of computer program that is charged with gathering all possible knowledge, but is unable to access the data it collects.

If you can provide some actual argument in defense of your "axiomatic knowledge" feel free. If not, feel free to simply declare victory.

Continued from Post #879: http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/is-there-one-sound-valid-syllogistic-argument-for-the-existence-of-god.376399/page-30#post-9883604

The Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists. ​

It seems to me that there remains a serious misunderstanding about what the transcendental argument, which is the most powerful argument for God's existence, demonstrates. Though the following is not in fact the ultimate point: by definition, there is nothing that may be known (or nothing that may exist) that is not known by an all-knowing knower. An all-knowing knower necessarily knows all things, including the awareness that it knows everything that may be known.

An omniscient Being = Someone Who knows everything about everything/everyone that exists.​

I’m not sure I understand what some are asserting regarding the computer analogy in the above, but assuming such a thing did have the ability to access data: it appears to me that all we'd be describing is some form of artificial intelligence programmed to "believe" that the knowledge it knows at any given moment = all knowledge. In reality, of course, it would never know all that may be known about everything that exists, but merely know all there is to know, which is problematical, about the knowledge it possesses at any given moment.

This seems this is right, though it's certainly possible that I might have expressed something either here or elsewhere imperfectly.

 

[G.T.]

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

#1 is a problem, right from the start.

 

[Brucethethinker]

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

Yes, I can prove mathematically that god does exist. I'll be happy to do so if anyone here really wants me to.

 

[G.T.]

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

Yes, I can prove mathematically that god does exist. I'll be happy to do so if anyone here really wants me to.

I'd just like to see what you've got, I dont care if it proves anything or doesn't - I'd just like to be entertained pls.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.

This statement of yours is the first coherently and logically valid thing I've read from you on this issue . . . assuming, of course, that your talking about an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.

*crickets chirping*

Nope.

I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point.

Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge.

But in order for your absolute to logically stand against any objection but the purely academic objection it would necessarily have to be an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist. So in fact you are talking about that very thing.

No, I don't agree.

All it takes to defeat any logical objections to my absolute, is to establish that a knower exists. All it takes is one.

I posit that I'm one, I cannot prove that you exist but I'd venture to guess you're one too.

I also don't agree that there is DEFINITELY an independently eternal and self subsistent uncaused cause of all other things -

Forget about God for the moment. That's confusing you, and it's not immediately relevant to the definition toward solving the problem of mutual understanding between you and me regarding the nature of the knowledge known by the all knower.

Is it or is it not your contention (your absolute) that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know everything there is to know about everything that exists, including the awareness that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists? That's what I'm getting from you. Is that in fact what you're saying?

 

[G.T.]

I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.

This statement of yours is the first coherently and logically valid thing I've read from you on this issue . . . assuming, of course, that your talking about an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.

*crickets chirping*

Nope.

I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point.

Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge.

But in order for your absolute to logically stand against any objection but the purely academic objection it would necessarily have to be an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist. So in fact you are talking about that very thing.

No, I don't agree.

All it takes to defeat any logical objections to my absolute, is to establish that a knower exists. All it takes is one.

I posit that I'm one, I cannot prove that you exist but I'd venture to guess you're one too.

I also don't agree that there is DEFINITELY an independently eternal and self subsistent uncaused cause of all other things -

Forget about God for the moment. That's confusing you, and it's not immediately relevant to the definition toward solving the problem of mutual understanding between you and me regarding the nature of the knowledge known by the all knower.

Is it or is it not your contention (your absolute) that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know everything there is to know about everything that exists, including the awareness that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists? That's what I'm getting from you. Is that in fact what you're saying?

For context,

The all knower part is theoretical only. I do not posit an all knower exists or doesn't.

So, the theoretical portion aside, my absolute is:
The knower who doesn't know all (myself, or other humans if they exist) necessarily knows that he/she/it is NOT an all knower, because if he/she/it was an all knower, they'd necessarily KNOW.

And this works independent of an all knower even having to exist.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

Yes, I can prove mathematically that god does exist. I'll be happy to do so if anyone here really wants me to.

This should

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

#1 is a problem, right from the start.

No. The problem is that you have yet to coherently answer the defeat of your contention in post #794 and, especially, in post #879. The major premise cannot be refuted by any argument that does not in fact logically prove the major premise is valid. Nevertheless, the current vehicle, your absolute, will serve the same purpose.

 

[G.T.]

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

Yes, I can prove mathematically that god does exist. I'll be happy to do so if anyone here really wants me to.

This should

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

#1 is a problem, right from the start.

No. The problem is that you have yet to coherently answer the defeat of your contention in post #794 and, especially, in post #879. The major premise cannot be refuted by any argument that does not in fact logically prove the major premise is valid. Nevertheless, the current vehicle, your absolute, will serve the same purpose.

Define God.

We can start there.


The #1 above is an assertion, at this point. We are starting over so-as to not talk past each other, or we can just quit, it's no matter to me.

But spare me 8paragraph diatribes because I skip those over.

Why? Because there's so many things WITHIN THEM I'd contend with, that doing EVERY SINGLE ONE would be an undertaking simply not worth it on a message board.

 

[G.T.]

If you posit that logical absolutes are unaccounted for without a god which is an uncaused cause (which, you cant account for uncaused causes) you are being absurd.

You are asserting that logic is accounted for by something that is unaccounted for.

Double standard, and absurd.

 

[Brucethethinker]

Define God.

We can start there.

Great, that will save me some steps. Because it is meaningless to talk about if god exists or not without first defining god.

Defining god is not trivial.

There is a word "god", we've been using the word. So the word "god" does exist.

So what does the word "god" mean? Well, what does any word mean?

I claim a word means what most people think it means. Words are symbols used to communicate. If I have one meaning for a word, and I'm speaking with someone who has a different meaning for the word, then we're not communicating with each other.

We're not only communicating with each other here in 2014, but we're also communicating with those who'll read our words many years from now. Furthermore, those who've written about god many years ago are communicating with us today.

So, what has "god" meant to people throughout space and time?

You just have to think about it, and you'll know.. "God" has always meant the unknown. Why is there lightning? Because god is making lightening. As soon as we came to understand the physics of lightning, we've stopped using "god" to "explain" it. The problem people have is they try to "know" things about "god", which is an oxymoron. As soon as you learn something about the unknown, it is no longer unknown. If you knew the unknown, it wouldn't be unknown.

I didn't try very hard to write this up because, well, who would read it anyway? But, basically, that's my argument. It's totally solid and unrefutable. No one whom I've ever shown this to has been satisfied, but that's not my problem.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This statement of yours is the first coherently and logically valid thing I've read from you on this issue . . . assuming, of course, that your talking about an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.

*crickets chirping*

Nope.

I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point.

Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge.

But in order for your absolute to logically stand against any objection but the purely academic objection it would necessarily have to be an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist. So in fact you are talking about that very thing.

No, I don't agree.

All it takes to defeat any logical objections to my absolute, is to establish that a knower exists. All it takes is one.

I posit that I'm one, I cannot prove that you exist but I'd venture to guess you're one too.

I also don't agree that there is DEFINITELY an independently eternal and self subsistent uncaused cause of all other things -

Forget about God for the moment. That's confusing you, and it's not immediately relevant to the definition toward solving the problem of mutual understanding between you and me regarding the nature of the knowledge known by the all knower.

Is it or is it not your contention (your absolute) that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know everything there is to know about everything that exists, including the awareness that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists? That's what I'm getting from you. Is that in fact what you're saying?

For context,

The all knower part is theoretical only. I do not posit an all knower exists or doesn't.

So, the theoretical portion aside, my absolute is:
The knower who doesn't know all (myself, or other humans if they exist) necessarily knows that he/she/it is NOT an all knower, because if he/she/it was an all knower, they'd necessarily KNOW.

And this works independent of an all knower even having to exist.

The emboldened is nonsense. That has already been utterly annihilated as you unwittingly (or dishonestly, given the fact that you continue to assert this in the face of the following) conflate the issue of knowledge with the issue of existence.

All I need show is the following:

Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.​

And:

Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God. ​

And the reason this of yours doesn't hold is underscored in post #794 and post #879.

Moving on. . . .
________________________________________

Right now I'm talking about what you asserted in your exchange with QW. It appeared that you argued in that exchange that an all knower would necessarily know all things, or put more perfectly:

Is it or is it not your contention (your absolute) that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know everything there is to know about everything that exists, including the awareness that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists? That's what I'm getting from you. Is that in fact what you're saying?​

If so, I agree with you. Are you backing away from that now?

 

[G.T.]

Define God.

We can start there.

Great, that will save me some steps. Because it is meaningless to talk about if god exists or not without first defining god.

Defining god is not trivial.

There is a word "god", we've been using the word. So the word "god" does exist.

So what does the word "god" mean? Well, what does any word mean?

I claim a word means what most people think it means. Words are symbols used to communicate. If I have one meaning for a word, and I'm speaking with someone who has a different meaning for the word, then we're not communicating with each other.

We're not only communicating with each other here in 2014, but we're also communicating with those who'll read our words many years from now. Furthermore, those who've written about god many years ago are communicating with us today.

So, what has "god" meant to people throughout space and time?

You just have to think about it, and you'll know.. "God" has always meant the unknown. Why is there lightning? Because god is making lightening. As soon as we came to understand the physics of lightning, we've stopped using "god" to "explain" it. The problem people have is they try to "know" things about "god", which is an oxymoron. As soon as you learn something about the unknown, it is no longer unknown. If you knew the unknown, it wouldn't be unknown.

I didn't try very hard to write this up because, well, who would read it anyway? But, basically, that's my argument. It's totally solid and unrefutable. No one whom I've ever shown this to has been satisfied, but that's not my problem.

It's not satisfactory.

Here's why:

The unknown answers still pre-existed our knowing them. They didn't change in nature once we knew them, so for them to have gone from "god" to "answers" suggests a change where there was none. Nothing changed about the answer itself, only our knowledge of it.

Why not call the unknown "the unknown," but instead "god" when it's frivolous/redundant to do so, is probably why those you're telling it to are not satisfied.