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

[Justin Davis]

Yeah, this is the vibe I got from your pontificating earlier in the thread. Which is why I was initially reluctant to step in your bullshit. I need to learn to trust my instincts.

Dear dblack and M.D. Rawlings:
I can follow MD through the logic of the arguments
UP TO THE POINT where things are thrown in there
like "if you can't see that then you're a Useless Bore"?

That is NOT neutral. Neutral would say
X and Y are conflicting. So if this is not resolved,
then something is wrong with this picture, and remain NEUTRAL
and not ASSUME The problem is with X person being a _____.

M.D. Rawlings: how can you ask our good friends here to
drop their emotional attachments to arguments,
and stick to what is purely logical and neutral,
but then you go and make an emotional judgment attached?

Do you see that is why they attach more to their points also?
You did the same, by saying "X condition equates to you being useless or a bore"

Those are NOT synonymous. The logic is a jump in conclusions.
So please fix this "leap in logic"
and maybe other people will quit this business of
"G cannot be proven thus this equates to angry Christians being mindless"

Those are NOT synonymous but value judgments attached.

We would ALL have to agree to stop adding "pork barreling to the
legislation" if we are going to pass any laws without those additives!

Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth. I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted. That person is useless. He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others. Read post 2020.

 

[Treeshepherd]

What is the import of Plato's allegory of the cave?

Folks are chained as prisoners in the depths of a cave. Their entire reality is what they see in the shadows cast upon the wall, caused by a fire lit behind them. They discuss the various shadows they see, and perhaps learn to manipulate the shadows. In fact, they go to self-help seminars in order to better learn how to capitalize on cave-life.

The philosopher breaks free of his chains, and escapes, and reaches the surface, and is blinded by the light of the sun. After a time, his eyes adjust, and he finds a whole new world above ground that he never was aware of. He returns, and returns to tell the prisoners of his discovery.

But to the trogs living down in the cave, nothing that the philosopher says makes any sense. His speech is gibberish to them, and nothing he says is relevant to what they understand to be reality. Because the course of logic is set by an original premise (often, and in this case, erroneous), the philosopher is deemed to be illogical and irrational. He is deemed to be a believer in Santa Claus, so to speak.

What is the import of the allegory of the cave (logic-ministers will differ with my opinion)? Few of us have the acumen to understand the teachings of the great historical prophets and mystics, just as few of us have the potential to become NBA players or masters of advanced calculus, or the ability to write like Shakespeare.

God, to the vast majority of those who believe and disbelieve in God, is best understood as a cartoonish Santa Claus-like old-man-with-a-beard abstraction. I exaggerate, but there is a kernel of truth in what I am saying. In the Hindu and Buddhist traditions, they have the concept of maya (illusion). In the OT, we have prophets who are rejected. In the gospels, even John the Baptist and the 12 apostles misunderstand Jesus at every turn. Collectively, even if we are logical, what we experience is in actuality a mass hallucination, and we call that reality.

Yet, faith is not merely a doctrine to be intellectually grasped. Religion is a practice. The whirling dance of the Sufi, the reading of a Zen koan, contemplative prayer, the chanting of scriptures, etc, all of these practices tend to empty the self, tend to short-circuit a habitual pattern of thought, tend to level the mental constructs that our minds have erected over the years.

p.s. Ebola! Global Warming!

 

[BreezeWood]

I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this. Atheist = God doesn't exist. There's no room for quibbling about that. That's what the term means. a = no; theist = God. No God or God doesn't exist. So precisely what is the atheist saying does objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind? What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on? The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.

Answer: The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.

Answer: His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence: the universe.

Simple.

It follows that even the atheist knows that "we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe." The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic. The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.

Simple.

So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.

You're a fucking idiot.

You're being too hard on the boy.

You’re just not understanding the M. Pompous Rawling theory of pointless argumentation.

As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:
RE A.
1. There is evidence for the gods.

How do we know this?

2. Because the universe exists.

And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?


3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.

And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?

4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.

Therefore:....

Simple.


A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.

How convenient.

NO that is not what he is saying
he is saying it can't be ruled out
God can neither be proven or disproven

He is trying to get to NEUTRAL

Can we get to NEUTRAL
that for God to represent the infinite and eternal which is beyond the scope of man
means God cannot be either proven or disproven

Can we please agree on that
and get to NEUTRAL

emilynghiem: Can we get to NEUTRAL

and that includes disqualify Christianity as is expressed by the OP as previous fallacies to discern the true origin of creation ...

.

????

No, "getting to NEUTRAL" does NOT disqualify Christianity.

it just drops EXCLUSION of any one side or another.

Dropping the "division or exclusion factor" still allows
all sides to participate equally.

Sorry if this isn't clear. Thanks BreezeWood
I know your heart and spirit is in the right place
and you are very inclusive and openly engaging.

We all need to be as INCLUSIVE as possible.

emily: No, "getting to NEUTRAL" does NOT disqualify Christianity.

that is what I was saying the OP had concluded by posting the Thread - Christianity etall has not proven the existence of God, is there something else that will ... the intent for the Thread.

Christianity has failed emilynghiem, it is your best interest to understand why.

.

 

[Treeshepherd]

How does the philosopher prove to the prisoners in the cave (in Plato's allegory), that another realm exists?

That would be like attempting to describe to a lifelong deaf man the beauty of Mozart's Requiem.

 

[Justin Davis]

1.

Youre missing a step.

Proving god existing in the first place.

Dear GT and MD:
1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
can NEVER be proven or disproven.
So this is impossible.
The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
NOR
neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.

Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.

The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
much less any proof using these finite human means.

If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.

That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
is this clear? can we agree on this please?

Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.

2.

Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.

Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.

that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.

2. ?????

Sorry GT
It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.

I think we got crossed when
A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
instead of sticking to the content.
C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
instead of sticking to the content.

I though the point was that
God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.

And most other conflicts stem from people
"insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.

Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
a lot of messages saying
"but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."

Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
Can we start with that and agree on that much?

A word to the wise: it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.

 

[amrchaos]

How does the philosopher prove to the prisoners in the cave (in Plato's allegory), that another realm exists?

That would be like attempting to describe to a lifelong deaf man the beauty of Mozart's Requiem.

I wonder if the deaf could feel music. I know that I can feel bass, I wonder what is necessary in order to feel higher octaves?

 

[Treeshepherd]

How does the philosopher prove to the prisoners in the cave (in Plato's allegory), that another realm exists?

That would be like attempting to describe to a lifelong deaf man the beauty of Mozart's Requiem.

I wonder if the deaf could feel music. I know that I can feel bass, I wonder what is necessary in order to feel higher octaves?

He who has ears, let him hear.

It's like the parable of the sower, who cast his seed. Some fell on rocky ground. Other seed fell by the road and was choked by weeds. Other seeds fell on good ground, and bare fruit 100 fold.

Everyone has gifts. Everyone has an acumen for something. By the same token, some can never have a deep spiritual experience, or for lack of a better phrase, an epiphany on the road to Damascus.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

How does the philosopher prove to the prisoners in the cave (in Plato's allegory), that another realm exists?

That would be like attempting to describe to a lifelong deaf man the beauty of Mozart's Requiem.

He doesn't. What he does is begin with the fundamental facts of existence and the immediately pertinent imperatives of the problem of origin. It follows that the potentiality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out, but not only that, it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought. From that point on, the principle of identity allows for only one objection: the weak assertion of a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority that remains rationally irreconcilable with the same laws of thought.

But then it is possible to go on from there and objectively demonstrate why the rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. The rest is up to the eye the beholder, not with regard to the veracity of the evidence, of course, as human consciousness does not have primacy over the realities of existence, but with regard to the quality of the beholder's moral and intellectual integrity.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

1.

Youre missing a step.

Proving god existing in the first place.

Dear GT and MD:
1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
can NEVER be proven or disproven.
So this is impossible.
The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
NOR
neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.

Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.

The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
much less any proof using these finite human means.

If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.

That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
is this clear? can we agree on this please?

Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.

2.

Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.

Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.

that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.

2. ?????

Sorry GT
It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.

I think we got crossed when
A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
instead of sticking to the content.
C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
instead of sticking to the content.

I though the point was that
God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.

And most other conflicts stem from people
"insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.

Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
a lot of messages saying
"but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."

Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
Can we start with that and agree on that much?

+

Thanks, Emily, I will have to get to this tomorrow. It's late. But let me give you something to think about in the meantime. No matter how axiomatic it may seem to you now, there's a serious problem with the notion that certain things cannot be proven or disproven. This is not the dichotomy you want to be using. Big trouble. Also, there appears to be some confusion about the nature of the underlying presuppositions for number 1 and number 2. They are asserted as axioms of practicality, not as absolute decrees from on high, though, in truth, that's what they ultimately are. Finally, watch out for the distinction between having a coherent apprehension of a thing and an absolute comprehensive of a thing.

 

[Hollie]

How does the philosopher prove to the prisoners in the cave (in Plato's allegory), that another realm exists?

That would be like attempting to describe to a lifelong deaf man the beauty of Mozart's Requiem.

He doesn't. What he does is begin with the fundamental facts of existence and the immediately pertinent imperatives of the problem of origin. It follows that the potentiality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out, but not only that, it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought. From that point on, the principle of identity allows for only one objection: the weak assertion of a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority that remains rationally irreconcilable with the same laws of thought.

But then it is possible to go on from there and objectively demonstrate why the rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. The rest is up to the eye the beholder, not with regard to the veracity of the evidence, of course, as human consciousness does not have primacy over the realities of existence, but with regard to the quality of the beholder's moral and intellectual integrity.

"it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought"

How cool is that? According to M. Pompous Rawling, any arguments against Rawling's gods is actually an argument in support of Rawling's gods.

How do we know this?

Simple. According to M. Pompous Rawling, "because I say so" is the only requirement, or possibly his manufactured version of "organic logic", as opposed to inorganic logic.

 

[Hollie]

1.

Youre missing a step.

Proving god existing in the first place.

Dear GT and MD:
1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
can NEVER be proven or disproven.
So this is impossible.
The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
NOR
neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.

Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.

The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
much less any proof using these finite human means.

If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.

That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
is this clear? can we agree on this please?

Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.

2.

Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.

Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.

that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.

2. ?????

Sorry GT
It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.

I think we got crossed when
A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
instead of sticking to the content.
C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
instead of sticking to the content.

I though the point was that
God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.

And most other conflicts stem from people
"insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.

Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
a lot of messages saying
"but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."

Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
Can we start with that and agree on that much?

A word to the wise: it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.

Cool. Rawling has a groupie.

 

[G.T.]

God is the source of knowledge therefore if you argue against god using knowledge you prove knowledge so you prove god.....




Begging the question harder than Eli Manning begs for protection on Sundays

(Derp derp logic).

 

[BreezeWood]

.
there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.

 

[dblack]

1.

Youre missing a step.

Proving god existing in the first place.

Dear GT and MD:
1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
can NEVER be proven or disproven.
So this is impossible.
The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
NOR
neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.

Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.

The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
much less any proof using these finite human means.

If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.

That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
is this clear? can we agree on this please?

Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.

2.

Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.

Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.

that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.

2. ?????

Sorry GT
It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.

I think we got crossed when
A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
instead of sticking to the content.
C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
instead of sticking to the content.

I though the point was that
God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.

And most other conflicts stem from people
"insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.

Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
a lot of messages saying
"but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."

Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
Can we start with that and agree on that much?

A word to the wise: it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.

Cool. Rawling has a groupie.

God is the source of knowledge therefore if you argue against god using knowledge you prove knowledge so you prove god.....




Begging the question harder than Eli Manning begs for protection on Sundays

(Derp derp logic).

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.
there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.

BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through. GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it. I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument. At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above. Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason. In any event, you don't have to take my word on it. Just think it through. Anyone can see that it's true. It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.

In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why. It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon. It's objectively and universally true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind. It's an axiom. The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought. That's just the way it is.

 

[Treeshepherd]

“A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
― Rabindranath Tagore

Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.

You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
"Oh, okay honey. "
"Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
"Umm, never mind."

 

[emilynghiem]

1.

Youre missing a step.

Proving god existing in the first place.

Dear GT and MD:
1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
can NEVER be proven or disproven.
So this is impossible.
The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
NOR
neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.

Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.

The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
much less any proof using these finite human means.

If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.

That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
is this clear? can we agree on this please?

Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.

2.

Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.

Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.

that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.

2. ?????

Sorry GT
It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.

I think we got crossed when
A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
instead of sticking to the content.
C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
instead of sticking to the content.

I though the point was that
God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.

And most other conflicts stem from people
"insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.

Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
a lot of messages saying
"but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."

Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
Can we start with that and agree on that much?

A word to the wise: it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.

Cool. Rawling has a groupie.

I equally back you up Hollie, Justin, dblack and MD.
Establishing a consensus means we all have to agree.
We are not going to get there without including all our points and resolving all our objections.

Go, Team!
I'm rooting for all of you to score, to make your touchdowns,
and homeruns. Each player needs to make those free throws and goals.
We are supposed to help each other to score, not cut each other down.

We are on the same team, just playing different positions and roles.

Trying to help each other to throw straight, and to go for the openings,
will stop players from stumbling and fumbling on the field. We still have
to stop each other from making preventable mistakes, but the purpose is
to help each other score not to knock players out of the game over penalties.

 

[Boss]

“A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
― Rabindranath Tagore

Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.

You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
"Oh, okay honey. "
"Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
"Umm, never mind."

I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.

Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.

The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.

 

[emilynghiem]

.
there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.

BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through. GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it. I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument. At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above. Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason. In any event, you don't have to take my word on it. Just think it through. Anyone can see that it's true. It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.

In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why. It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon. It's objectively and universally true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind. It's an axiom. The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought. That's just the way it is.

What I would add MD is that this CAN be proven.
1. by continuing the process WITHOUT insulting anyone as I fear you do without realizing it makes the difference.
it is sort of like a contrapositive proof, where you present the conclusion (which here is the OPPOSITE of what your objectors believe) and then remove all the subsequent arguments and examples that come up. In pure logic, this is not the usual way to do a contrapositive proof; the usual way is to show that a FIXED contradiction comes up that is universally true in all cases, so once you prove that contradiction is inevitable and universal, this proves it across the board. With God there is an infinite number and variations on the contradictions that arise for each person, so technically you can never prove them all as a pattern for all people.

but in practice YES with each person, they will come to a point where they run into a conflict or contradiction.
So it can bep roven to THEM. it just cannot totally be assumed that this pattern applies to all people, because each person goes through a different version of it.

so what Christians do is follow this pattern: first stating it, then working through all objections untli those FINITE issues are resolved and people reach agreement after exhausting that process. it is different for each person and that is why it has never been proven globally

HOWEVER

2. what CAN be proven is a statistical pattern to show this repeats.
using stats we CAN show that this process is based on forgiving and resolving conflicts.

So as the pseudo-contrapositive approach is applied,
conflicts come up for each person to be resolved or to get deadlocked.

And two outcomes result
a. either the person forgives and resolves the conflicts or issues of division and the process proceeds
until conclusion or agreement is reached
b. or the person cannot forgive and resolve the point of conflict and thus remain divided

And what can be shown to CORRELATE
is
a. forgiveness as reported by the people involved in the conflict or division
correlates with ability to resolve it
b. unforgiveness correlates with inability to get past it

so MD in this case, if you do not forgive but keep passing judgment and insulting
the objectors, that is unforgiveness on your part

and this theory says that as you forgive or as these objectors forgive your flaws
instead of jumping on you for them, then you will be able to move past this.

what you do not see MD is that your flaw is mutual to theirs.
you think you do not need to change but they do.
so that is why you are stuck, all of you.

whoever is the bigger person and sees it is a mutual change will break the deadlock
I am guessing it will be either Justin or dblack
and then they can help you and Hollie quit locking horns

Justin and dblack am I right
are you able to see my points above?
someone in this group is going to be the first
and you will help the others get off their emotional stances and stick to the logic

I thought MD understood this, but it looks like he only understands the logical conflct
but doesn't get the HUMAN dynamics of why the emotions get in the way of logic

the change has to come mutually or people resent the others making them change
someone has to be first to reach across the aisle and agree the changes are needed
on all sides. who will it be?

 

[emilynghiem]

“A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
― Rabindranath Tagore

Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.

You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
"Oh, okay honey. "
"Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
"Umm, never mind."

I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.

Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.

The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.

Dear Boss:
In the case of electrons, the assumption was false and that is why the logic failed.
There was an exception to the rule so logic based on a false statement tagged on = false.

If we eliminate all such conflicts then we can use consistent logic.

May I propose this logic
a. people either AGREE or DISAGREE
b. to them something is either TRUE or FALSE
c. or they WANT X and do NOT want Y
d. they either Consent or Dissent
e. either Consistent with what they understand believe and agree to go along with
or Inconsistent and has some objection to be resolved first

what is relative is each person's system or rationale/justification for why their
conscience answers Yay or Nay, Yes or No, true or false, 1 or 0

but the logic is there, either go or no go.
if we can respect each other's logic and try to eliminate the contradictions
we can all get to yes. but we have to respect the no's even if someone's reasoning is different.

how can we get to the yes buttons and push those?
when we hit a NO, can we agree to stop and hash out what is missing or wrong
instead of insulting someone's reasons for objecting. they may say one thing
and it turns out to be another, but the conscience is still flagging an alarm so
why can't we answer that. and work through the no's and yes's until we all get to yes.