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

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

My apologies, I should have been clearer in my challenge, but I was talking to someone who barely understands logic, and I let my language slip.

The problem is that axioms are logical truths, that does not make them automatically universal truths outside the realm of logic. I do not see any evidence that the universe is constrained by our ideas of logic. In fact, since logic can prove things that are demonstrably false, I see exactly the opposite. In order for something to be universally true, not just logically axiomatic, it would have to apply, without exception, every where in the universe.

Given the existence of black holes, which actually break down all the laws of physics, but are still part of the universe, no physical law we know is universal.
Assuming the existence of a supernatural being that created the universe, and is thus beyond our ability to define, I refuse o believe that that being is in any way limited by our insistence that logical truths apply to him. Given that science has proven that the ability to make choices actually exists in living beings, and that I am incapable of explaining how someone can know all my choices before I make them and that I have free will, there must be some mechanism to not know my choices until after they are made. That means that I have to assume that being omniscient only applies to current and past knowledge, or that we don't actually understand the concept.

Besides, I already described a computer system that can collect all knowledge in the universe, yet not be aware of that knowledge.

Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.

It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:

1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.

Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​

2. The origin of logic?

3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).


Number 3 is the most daunting.

I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!

 

[dblack]

And I don't think it makes any difference WHY we choose good or evil. The result will be the same whether by culture/conditioning/education or by reasoning apart from everything else. My argument there is that I believe I have observed and experienced reason and logic that is apart from and even counter to a person's culture/conditioning/education and while all of us will be influenced by our culture/conditioning/education, I believe we also are given free will to think and act outside of those influences and/or expectations.

Absolutely, and I totally agree with that conception of free will. But that doesn't, necessarily, conflict with causality. The current state of your mind is influenced by all your experiences and previous states of mind. One can be free to reason contrary to external influences even under strict causality, but that doesn't mean your thoughts and values that inform your decisions were caused by something. The kind of free will usually under debate is offered as an alternative to determinism, and see as a direct contradiction of causality. But I wonder how often those suggesting it are actually talking about the kind of free will you're describing.

I honestly think that Laplace created much of the incoherence around the concept of free will with his 'demon'. By equivocating "causal" with "predetermined", he painted a picture of a universe with no freedom. This view is further compounded with the role free will takes in assigning moral accountability, such that not only is Laplace's deterministic world devoid of freedom, but also of moral responsibility. People rightfully reject such a world as 'hell' no one would want to live in (I don't think the demon characterization was accidental). But I think both assumptions - both that strict causality denies freedom, and that freedom from causality is a requirement for moral responsibility - are flawed, even though we tend to take both for granted.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

I am asserting that the universe is not bound the human philosophy of logic.

Seriously, why is that so hard to understand, especially when theology postulates an omniscient being that chooses not to know everything in order to give humans free will?

But both of these assertions are ultimately predicated on the assumption that the laws of logic are man made, not contingent on or derived from God. Therein lies the rub. We don't hold to the same premise. I'm not sure which theology you're subscribing to. I can tell you that Christianity holds that God is without exception omniscient and that creatures simultaneously have free will. The key to understanding what appears to many as being an irresolvable paradox is to understand the biblical resolution that God exists in the eternal now.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Scientists aren't, necessarily, skilled philosophers - often to their detriment. That article is a good example.

Perhaps that is because philosophy is full of shit, and scientists deal in reality.

Free will exists, the universe is not predeterministic. You can post every single philosophical argument you want to defend the idea that I am wrong, I will point to actual scientific evidence that contradicts you to prove the negative I just claimed.

Or perhaps science necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another, and some philosophical systems of thought are full shit.

 

[BreezeWood]

Scientists aren't, necessarily, skilled philosophers - often to their detriment. That article is a good example.

Perhaps that is because philosophy is full of shit, and scientists deal in reality.

Free will exists, the universe is not predeterministic. You can post every single philosophical argument you want to defend the idea that I am wrong, I will point to actual scientific evidence that contradicts you to prove the negative I just claimed.

Or perhaps science necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another, and some philosophical systems of thought are full shit.

M.D: Or perhaps science necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another, and some philosophical systems of thought are full shit.

.
such as the development of the Atomic-Bomb during a world wide conflict.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's neither simple nor clear, and still doesn't address my question.

I already said that the universe is not deterministic, so I do not see how I could better answer your question than ignoring the part of it that is irrelevant.

Wow. Seriously, that's just sad to see.

Only if you think philosophy, which gave us the idea that there are only 4 elements, actually has something pertinent to say about the universe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, certainly, there's no argument about the emboldened. We're all in the same boat there. But ultimately the mechanism by which we recognize that to be true is the principle of identity, namely, the law of contradiction, not merely by way of experience. In other words, we're aware from experience of the fact that we "forget" things. At times we've all tried to retrieve information that we know for a fact we had previously filed, but can't pull it from the file. What we do remember (or consciously know) is that we stored information about something, but can't recall precisely what we stored about that something. The distinction between remembering and forgetting is an operation of the law of contradiction. Experience provides for the medium that permits the distinction to be made, but it is the built-in principle of identity that tells us precisely what distinction we are making as opposed to making any number of other necessary distinctions.

The fundamental principles of logic are not human-created tools. They're a universally intrinsic component of our nature. As for putting limits on an omniscient-omnipotent mind: you're presupposing that the laws of logic are universally intrinsic, not human-created, as you recognize the distinction between the powers of apprehension and volition of finite minds and those of an omniscient mind. Ultimately, what you're suggesting is that the laws of logic are not contingent on God or derived from God because they cannot be an intrinsic component of His being.

If the universe were logical there would be no way a single photon could go through two slits at the same time, yet it does happen. If the universe were logical a single photon would either go through both slits all the time, or through one slit all the time, it would not suddenly decide to behave one way when it is watched, and another way when it isn't.

Since the universe is not logical, the laws of logic do not apply to it, and are thus nothing more than the constructs of philosophers who like to think they can define the universe, and human thought.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Well, certainly, there's no argument about the emboldened. We're all in the same boat there. But ultimately the mechanism by which we recognize that to be true is the principle of identity, namely, the law of contradiction, not merely by way of experience. In other words, we're aware from experience of the fact that we "forget" things. At times we've all tried to retrieve information that we know for a fact we had previously filed, but can't pull it from the file. What we do remember (or consciously know) is that we stored information about something, but can't recall precisely what we stored about that something. The distinction between remembering and forgetting is an operation of the law of contradiction. Experience provides for the medium that permits the distinction to be made, but it is the built-in principle of identity that tells us precisely what distinction we are making as opposed to making any number of other necessary distinctions.

The fundamental principles of logic are not human-created tools. They're a universally intrinsic component of our nature. As for putting limits on an omniscient-omnipotent mind: you're presupposing that the laws of logic are universally intrinsic, not human-created, as you recognize the distinction between the powers of apprehension and volition of finite minds and those of an omniscient mind. Ultimately, what you're suggesting is that the laws of logic are not contingent on God or derived from God because they cannot be an intrinsic component of His being.

If the universe were logical there would be no way a single photon could go through two slits at the same time, yet it does happen. If the universe were logical a single photon would either go through both slits all the time, or through one slit all the time, it would not suddenly decide to behave one way when it is watched, and another way when it isn't.

Since the universe is not logical, the laws of logic do not apply to it, and are thus nothing more than the constructs of philosophers who like to think they can define the universe, and human thought.

Universe is perfectly logical. Google temporal coexistence. Will blow your mind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.

Don't hold your breath.

It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:

1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.

Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​

​

I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.

2. The origin of logic?

3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).


Number 3 is the most daunting.

I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.

I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!

I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or perhaps science necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another, and some philosophical systems of thought are full shit.

I haven't found a single philosophy that doesn't, at some point, make unverifiable assumptions about the universe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Universe is perfectly logical. Google temporal coexistence. Will blow your mind.

You do know that you are talking about ecology here, not something that is truly mind blowing. Nor does it prove that the universe is logical.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Universe is perfectly logical. Google temporal coexistence. Will blow your mind.

You do know that you are talking about ecology here, not something that is truly mind blowing. Nor does it prove that the universe is logical.

Citing the behaviour of photons in a double-slit experiment as being illogical is faulty. Quantum mechanics is perfectly logical, as is how a single atom can exist simutaneously in different positions (the aforementioned temporal coexistence.) Your lack of understanding doesn't bear out the statement the universe is illogical.

 

[dblack]

That's neither simple nor clear, and still doesn't address my question.

I already said that the universe is not deterministic, so I do not see how I could better answer your question than ignoring the part of it that is irrelevant.

Wow. Seriously, that's just sad to see.

Only if you think philosophy, which gave us the idea that there are only 4 elements, actually has something pertinent to say about the universe.

Science can't happen without philosophy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Citing the behaviour of photons in a double-slit experiment as being illogical is faulty. Quantum mechanics is perfectly logical, as is how a single atom can exist simutaneously in different positions (the aforementioned temporal coexistence.) Your lack of understanding doesn't bear out the statement the universe is illogical.

Sigh.

Logic is a framework for argument. By definition, quantum mechanics falls outside that framework because it is part of the real universe, and not subject to human devised rules of reasoning. Just because you do not understand that simple fact does not mean the rest of the universe is bound by your ignorance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Science can't happen without philosophy.

That is a strange position to hold considering that you argued that scientists don't understand philosophy.

 

[G.T.]

It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
LOL!

That's so weird, maybe you're autistic. I answered it several times, and for being a dickhead and pretending I* didn't, you can apologize or you're dismissed.

post 1020 answered it the very FIRST time you asked it, and then you continued asking.

"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."





post 1028 elaborates.

"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 -"








Then 1034 really solidifies my answer for you.

"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 so, we're done. Or, you can apologize for stating that I continued to not answer. Peace.

 

[G.T.]

The presuppositional apologetic, also known as the tag argument, is reduced to a circular argument based on a naked assertion.

God *is* such and such, such and such exists, therefore God.

Circular.

Logic and moral absolutes are also circular in origin; however, their existence is currently testable within our realm of existence and works. It's not based on a naked assertion, because you can see that, and why, it works. You cannot see or test this with god, unless you beg the question -> define him however conveniently/dishonestly you'd like, etc.

That's what it all boils down to. You can type 70 paragraphs whining about that it's not true, but the tag argument is and has been inept. Fucking google it. Or, just think about why it's a naked assertion. I don't know.

 

[dblack]

Science can't happen without philosophy.

That is a strange position to hold considering that you argued that scientists don't understand philosophy.

Maybe that will prompt you to think about it a bit more.

 

[BreezeWood]

I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.

I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others.

and that is not what the xchristians in this thread have collectively conspired to accomplish ?

The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.

the only paradox would be free/will in a pre deterministic Universe ...

no but then the christian bible does negate free/will by their central precept that "No one comes to the Father except through me".

.

 

[dblack]

Science can't happen without philosophy.

That is a strange position to hold considering that you argued that scientists don't understand philosophy.

Maybe that will prompt you to think about it a bit more.

Rather than be oblique, I'll explain. I didn't say scientists don't understand philosophy - all of the best ones understand it implicitly. I said they aren't necessarily skilled in philosophy, and pointed out that, when that is the case, it is to their detriment. Philosophy is what distinguishes science from engineering and craft. Real science is about finding new understanding and new truth, and to do that effectively requires mastery of the tools we use to derive truth - and that is ultimate domain of philosophy.