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

[percysunshine]

.

The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.

Get over it people.

.

 

[G.T.]

.

The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.

Get over it people.

.

Egg sack lee

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Doctrine is one aspect of religion.

IMO, the most important aspect of religion is practice. Practice, first and foremost. The whirling dance of the Sufi, the Zen Koan, the many paths of Yoga, contemplative prayer, chanting of scripture, etc... Contrary to this notion that religion is all about filling the mind with dogma, practice is designed to empty the self. These practices can short-circuit our habitual patterns of thought, and allow for the demolition of the biased mental constructs (ego-self) we have erected over the years. Practice can open up the heart, and make the self vulnerable, and receptive to esoteric truth.

It's interesting (to me anyway) that the oldest extant scrap of NT scripture is a tiny fragment with two readable words on it: Pilate and Veritas (Truth). Therefore, we know that this is from the Gospel of John, where Pilate asks Christ, "What is Truth?"
Jesus stand before him, and remains silent.

You are the only other person I've encountered who perceived the significance of Jesus's silence in the face of Pilot's question. I can hear the sound of the pin dropping in the that moment of silence all over again. I'm sure others have heard "the sound" the pin makes as well, for it's rocket science after all. But it is a "sound" that one must slow down long enough to "hear."

By the way, Jesus is the universal Principle of Identity, the Logos, the ground of the logic and the wisdom in our minds to which I am speaking.

Indeed, He is the universal Principle of Identity and I've heard that pin drop too, a very nice way to put it. I dropped that pin in our men's Bible study and now all off them have heard it too, though my pastor had already heard it before.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Youre an idiot.

You cant make a rational argument for something based on premises that are not themselves proven.

Ask a ******* five year old to.explain it to one of you dopes.

And again, arguing against it does not make it so. For that to be true, you AGAIN have to beg the question.

Do you need to be taught why begging the question is an invalid way to attempt a logical proof of something?

You're in effect saying

Proof of god:

God exists, so knowledge has to come from god

Knowledge exists

Therefore god exists!


Only a complete jackass doesn't see what's wrong with that, logically. I.e. you two dorks.

Still trying to convince yourself that what you heard earlier isn't true after all, eh?

Stop listening to this voice:

Let us go then, you and me,
And stroll beneath a cloudy sea
As evening spreads across its face like a toothless grin.
Let us go a-meandering down narrow-minded suburban lanes,
Silky slick with sullen rains
And hemmed in by redundant four-bedroom stalls and grated sewage drains;
Past the immaculate parks and the quaint, steepled churches,
the lofty perches,
Where the vagabond Riffraff lurches in the pristine shadows:
A restless Crowd that chases dreams of easy grace and meadows
And sings a melancholy hymn, a petulant brew, that lingers at your nervebone.

Prufrock s Lair A Dirge for J. Alfred Prufrock The Last Hurrah

​

Rather, come out of the cave. The weather's fine, not a cloud in sight. The birds are singing, perched on the branches of a tree nearby, a stage under the light of a brightly lit sight.

 

[dblack]

Did you miss the part where I said I had the same understanding before I came to this forum? I'm a Christian. So is Rawlings.

Yeah. I suppose that's the crux of it. I guess I just thought there might be more to it than that. Sorry to bother you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Breezewood,

I just went on a 400 mile walk/pilgrimage/adventure in September. I came to the Pulgas Water Temple, where water from the Sierra is pumped into a reservoir for usage in the SF Bay Area. Upon the temple is inscribed a few lines of scripture from Isaiah; "I make waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, as drink for my people". I took that to heart for the next 300 miles of my walk. On a literal level, yes, it was important to find water. I had great appreciation for the water I found along the way. But, Isaiah is speaking on multiple levels. It was the living water, in a poetic sense (spiritual strength) that I needed also in order to walk 20 miles a day up and down hills with 30 lbs on my back.

Is the Christian God a physical being? I don't think you can say that's true for all Christians. I'm more of a pagan druid, but I have been educated in the Catholic faith, and they didn't teach Biblical literalism. Quite the opposite, except on a very few main points. To me, God is best described as a first principle of the universe, like the Tao, non-material, but the source of matter... and the further I go on describing God the further I get from accuracy.

I find it interesting when atheists insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible,seemingly just as often as fundamentalist believers.

Yes. God is the first principle, albeit, for the universe. He is the Principle of Identity.

He is the ground for all existence, and, of course, the universal principle of identity (the comprehensive expression of the rational and moral laws of thought) endowed by God to man, is grounded in Him, as He is the fullness of that principle. The fundamental laws of thought are reliable for this reason. The comprehensive expression/principle of the rational and moral laws of thought are stamped by God on our minds. This is His image and what sets us apart from all other creatures of the terrestrial order. It's His name, put on us as His property.

The voice we hear as our own in our minds when we faithfully apply the comprehensive principle of identity (the logic of God) to any given problem is in fact His voice speaking the wisdom thusly divulged.

 

[dblack]

Breezewood,

I just went on a 400 mile walk/pilgrimage/adventure in September. I came to the Pulgas Water Temple, where water from the Sierra is pumped into a reservoir for usage in the SF Bay Area. Upon the temple is inscribed a few lines of scripture from Isaiah; "I make waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, as drink for my people". I took that to heart for the next 300 miles of my walk. On a literal level, yes, it was important to find water. I had great appreciation for the water I found along the way. But, Isaiah is speaking on multiple levels. It was the living water, in a poetic sense (spiritual strength) that I needed also in order to walk 20 miles a day up and down hills with 30 lbs on my back.

Is the Christian God a physical being? I don't think you can say that's true for all Christians. I'm more of a pagan druid, but I have been educated in the Catholic faith, and they didn't teach Biblical literalism. Quite the opposite, except on a very few main points. To me, God is best described as a first principle of the universe, like the Tao, non-material, but the source of matter... and the further I go on describing God the further I get from accuracy.

I find it interesting when atheists insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible,seemingly just as often as fundamentalist believers.

Yes. God is the first principle, albeit, for the universe. He is the Principle of Identity.

He is the ground for all existence, and, of course, the universal principle of identity (the comprehensive expression of the rational and moral laws of thought) endowed by God to man, is grounded in Him, as He is the fullness of that principle. The fundamental laws of thought are reliable for this reason. The comprehensive expression/principle of the rational and moral laws of thought are stamped by God on our minds. This is His image and what sets us apart from all other creatures of the terrestrial order. It's His name, put on us as His property.

The voice we hear as our own in our minds when we faithfully apply the comprehensive principle of identity (the logic of God) to any given problem is in fact His voice speaking the wisdom thusly divulged.

All this prancing around and you're a couple of ******* Jehovah's witnesses.

 

[Boss]

So what humans are different/smarter? So what? Just because we are the smartest animal doesn't mean a god exists.

Didn't say it meant a God exists... Remember (again), if I could prove God exists, we're not having this conversation. So please stop assuming everything I say means I am claiming God exists. It's getting ridiculous.

It's not that humans are smarter. It's not that humans are different. There are other animals who can do things better (smarter) than humans. There are other things that are different from humans. There is only one species like humans, with a very special set of attributes enabling what we define as humanity.

Science has explained what a freak accident it was that we got as smart as we did....

No, science has NOT explained any such thing and neither have you. There are no "freak accidents" in science. Things can be explained through theories or they can't. This thing can't be explained by any theory. So it's no "freak accident" it's something we don't know. We can speculate. We can hypothesize. But there isn't an answer at this time.

and they said if all humans disappeared from earth tomorrow it is highly unlikely another animal would some day become as smart as we are. I can't remember all the details but they did say what a fluke it was that at some point we became more intelligent than any other animal ever.

So we have this special "uber-smartness" that we can't really explain where it came from or how we got it, other than it was a fluke accident... We don't see it anywhere else in nature, no other living thing has it, and it just so happens this thing is what uniquely enables humans to explore their universe and ponder these profound questions, become inspired to answer the questions, believe in themselves as being empowered by a force greater than self which has caused exceptional advancements over other living things in the way of achievement... and it's simply a fluke accident that just so happened to occur in the roll of the dice.. no big deal?

Nah... the bullshit meter is pegging out on that one.

So I do understand that no other animal will probably ever get as smart as we are. So what? What does that prove?

I think it proves this special set of attributes human have that other living things don't, is not something that simply comes from the evolution process. This is not about simple "smartness" as I've gone over with you... if it were, we'd see where the Chimps tried to launch a rocket to the moon but were unsuccessful because they aren't as smart as humans... or the Great Apes are in Africa trying to cure Ebola but they aren't as smart as humans and are failing. We'd see dolphins and whales organizing protests to demand equal rights. We don't see this because other animals lack something besides smarts.

Just because you are the fastest person in a race or the smartest person on a test doesn't mean you go to heaven and other animals don't.

Spiritual foundation? I think humans are the worse animal on this planet. We are worse than cockroaches and rats. We are overpopulating and destroying this planet. If anything we are god big mistake. Get rid of humans and this planet turns back into the garden of Eden.

THIS demonstrates why non-god-believing idiots are dangerous to humanity.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

But I don't really agree with any of this for reasons that go to your faulty proven-disproven dichotomy, however, one thing at a time.

Do me a favor and take a look at this short post, Post #2106: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999138/.

Now keep that thought in mind as you set aside everything you ever believed to be true in this regard for the time it takes to read and absorb the following. . . .

Ultimately, the Principle of Identity is God Himself, the ground for all existence, and the expressive logic of God is impressed on our souls or minds or hearts as well. The wisdom divulged by applying this principle to our apprehensions of existence includes the knowledge of spiritual healing, what it is and how it works. An atheist can apply this very same principle and reap the rewards of spiritual healing too, though the optimal outcome in this regard and in all others is experienced by those who acknowledge the existence of God and embrace His reality.

Now the above is what I personally believe to be true as divinely imparted wisdom. It's ultimate substance cannot currently be scientifically verified, but this does not mean that science cannot be used to systematically correlate the application of the principles of spiritual healing with the experiential outcomes thereof and compare them to the experiential outcomes for those who do not apply these principles. In other words, science can be used to systematically compile and evaluate the data accordingly.

Now let us move on to what is in fact proven by logic and by science comprehensively.

God's existence is emphatically proven by the principle of identity (the comprehensive laws of rational and moral thought), i.e., the fundamental, organic/classical laws of thought.

We have an avalanche of empirical evidence to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). This is what makes us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs. Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts.

Hence, most scientists and philosophers hold this to be true empirically, not merely intuitively true. In constructive/intuitionistic logic (the logic of scientific justification), this proposition would be assigned a truth value.

Now we come to the theological proposition of Post #2106: the laws of human apprehension/thought are ultimately grounded in God. God is the universal Principle of Identity on Whom the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness (RFLCHC) are contingent. Ultimately, this is the reason for the apparent synchronization of the RFLCHC with the rest of the cosmological order. This proposition, of course, would be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in constructive/intuitionistic logic until disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction.

But that's just it, no contradiction can be deduced from this proposition. Unlike the bald assertion of atheism, which unjustifiably (illogically) rules out the possibility of God's existence, it is not illogical to emphatically assert God exists! That declaration, in and of itself, is not inherently contradictory or self-negating like the declaration God is not.

Let that sink in. Think about it.

Hence, in organic/classical logic, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is assigned a truth value as it's inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof: it cannot be falsified, as any counterargument necessarily presupposes it to be true. God exists! The principle of identity, the foundation of knowledge, universally applies, as its logical proof is unassailable. Also, because the principle of identity universally applies in all forms of logic, the MPTA is assigned a truth value in constructive/intuitionistic logic too: the logically unassailable proposition itself, that is, not the theological proposition, which argues the matter in terms of actual spiritual substance.

Now at this point, I appreciate the fact that you may not understand why the transcendental argument necessarily proves God's existence under the terms of organic/classical logic, though any person with a sound, developmentally mature mind can see that this is self-evident by merely thinking the matter through.
At this point I'm just asking you to trust me or at the very least keep an open mind. Disregard the objections we've seen of late on this thread from fanatically dogmatic laymen, for these "counterarguments" are in fact premises for arguments that actually prove the transcendental argument is logically true.
In other words, despite the intellectual dishonesty of some on this thread who refuse to think their arguments through to their axiomatic conclusions, learned academicians (whether they be theists, atheists or agnostics) know this is true and why. This fact of human cognition is an historically well-established, centuries-old doctrine in the cannon of philosophical literature.

The following is from Wikipedia, which attempts to provide an unbiased summation, but is in fact inaccurate and misleading, yet illustratively instructive: "[1] While acceptance of this premise can lead to the conclusion that a god must exist, [2] the argument itself provides no demonstrated necessity to accept the premise."


1. Actually, it always leads to the conclusion that God exists in organic/classical logic against any conceivable counterargument, and the logical proposition, in and of itself, universally holds in all alternate forms of logic.

Whether one accepts the premise to be ultimately true or not is immaterial. Personal biases have no bearing on the matter whatsoever. The matter is academic, as objectively premised on the fundamental laws of thought, the argument never loses. God exists!


2. False, contradictory and/or misleading. The author is confused. The MPTA is not merely a collection of words.

The MPTA is inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof in organic/classical logic, in which the conclusion is necessarily true. Once again, God exists! It's an axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4. If this were not so, nobody would care about this argument at all! The author is unwittingly interjecting the bias of metaphysical naturalism as he unwittingly conflates the logical proposition with the theological proposition.

For further clarification on the matter, click on this link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/

Finally, for now, carefully consider this information, digest it. Tomorrow I will address the rest of your post. Then we will be ready to look at the transcendental argument, and I will show why it never loses an argument.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

All this prancing around and you're a couple of ******* Jehovah's witnesses.

False. I'm not a JW in any way, shape for form, and neither is Justin. JW's reject the divinity of Christ and the Triune God. Stop being silly. Our beliefs are biblically orthodox, though, at this point, they are only marginally related to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. .

 

[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.

MD: It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof - It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon ...

but the Christian God is stated as a physical being, so there is a criteria for Christians as yourself to provide the scientific proof for that Deities being, that you have not established.

for centuries ... how much time is time enough ?

that's the point, there is a Logical proof for a God that proves it is not the Christian deity, logically and as QW and others point out logic alone is not a proof for anything only an insinuation.

The Christian God of the Bible is not a physical being. What are you talking about? The Incarnate Christ?

QW's nonsense is incoherent blather, which amounts to epistemological subjectivism/relativism at the level of human apprehension as it contradictorily asserts that existence has absolute primacy over human consciousness. Which is it? If the first is true, the second is false. The man is an utter ass.

It is precisely because of his confusion that at one point he actually thought I was arguing that human consciousness has primacy existence. I’ve never argued any such stupidity in my life.

Existence has primacy over human consciousness absolutely, and the reason we know that must be true is because the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are universally absolute, not relative. And his "philosophical bullshit" that the principle of identity does not universally hold is utter lunacy.

The principle of identity necessarily holds in any given form of logic that exists today or will ever exist, as the that principle is the existentially indispensable first principle of human cognition. If what QW and others are foolishly saying were true then how in the hell could we assert anything whatsoever, including the stupidity that all logic is insinuative, never absolute?

Are you and he proposing something about the nature of logic as an absolute fact or not?

Answer: Yes, you guys are. Your guys are arguing the absolute that all logic is insinuative only?

But if all logic is insinuative only, then how can any assertion be absolute?

Some people are so gullible it would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

But I don't fault you, BreezeWood, I fault the likes of QW who consciously assert subjective stupidities, mere unsupportable opinions, as if they were absolutes from on high. He knew he was lying through his teeth all along.

 

[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.

Actually, Hollie has thought it through. Hollie has thought it through enough to point out your dishonest attempts proving your gods with bad analogies, false comparisons and utterly silly justifications for your alleged “logical” pwoofs.

Among my favorite absurdities of yours are the laughable demonstrations of circular reasoning.

Among the moments of comedy gold that are classic Rawling’isms” is:
“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”


Classic! We’re to accept that any argument contrary to what M. Pompous Rawling rattles on with regarding his gods is actually an argument in support of his gods.

I’ve noticed that M. Pompous Rawling is befuddled regarding his own inability to even proffer a consistent argument. He will alternately and carelessly waffles back and forth, stumbling over his confusion regarding a “logic” argument vs. a “philosophical” argument. He generally retreats to the “philosophical” weasel when his alleged logical arguments are pointed out as being amateurish and self-refuting.


This is why religious fundamentalists such as Rawling tend to run screaming from actual discussion regarding the hard science and evidence they are unable to provide for their claims to magical gods and supernatural realms and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.


Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.


The standards of rationality, evidence and fact are the only benchmark by which we discriminate those beliefs that hold validity towards acceptance from those that do not. When we abandon these standards, when we consider them unimportant, then we will be at the mercy of any nonsensical claim that happens to come our way. We will have no standards by which to distinguish that which maintains an analog of consistency from that which does not. The result is we succumb to being at the mercy of one quasi-intellectual fad after another. This is quite common nowadays. You see people going from one cult of Eastern mysticism to a cult of psychology to later trying one of the larger organized religions and back and forth, careening off of one intellectual dead end to another. This is the logical consequence when reason is abandoned. There is no longer a grounding-point or a means of discriminating between fact and self-serving / viciously circular claims such as: "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”

Hollie! THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT IS AN AXIOM OF HUMAN COGNITION, JUST LIKE 2 + 2 = 4; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT A SCIENTIC PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU KEEP THINKING I'M SAYING. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE. I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS! IF I'M NOT SAYING THAT, AND I'M NOT, THEN EVERYTHING IN YOUR POST IN THE ABOVE IS WRONG.

LOGICAL PROOFS ≠ SCIENTIFIC PROOFS!

AND SCIENCE IS CONTINGENT ON PHILOSOPHY, ONLY MORONS DON'T KNOW THAT; INDEED, EVERYTHING IN YOUR POST IS PHILOSOPHY. IT'S BAD PHILOSOPHY, STUPID PHILOSPHY, THE PHILOSOPHY OF A RAVING LUNATIC, BUT PHILOSOPHY JUST THE SAME.

ONLY MORONS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT CONCEPTUALIZATIONS (MATHEMATICAL, GEOMETRIC, LINGUISTIC . . . ) ARE NOT DERIVED FROM SCIENCE, BUT ARE DERIVED FROM THE CONTENTS OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS, THAT THEY NECESSARILY PRECEDE SCIENCE, THAT WE CANNOT DO SCIENCE WITHOUT THESE RATIONAL AXIOMS AND THE POSTULATES AND THEOREMS THEREOF, THAT PHILOSOPHY IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH WE DEFINE AND DELINEATE THE METAPHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF EXISTENTS, WHICH NECESSARILY PRECEDE THE DEFINITION AND DELINEATION OF THEIR MATERIAL PROPERITES,THAT PHILOSOPHY IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH WE DEFINE THE PARAMETERS OF JUSTIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE IN BOTH RATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC TERMS, THAT SCIENCE ITSELF IS NECESSARILY PREMISED ONE PHILOSPHICAL APRIORITY OR ANOTHER IN TERMS OF ONTOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS.

THE NATURE OF SCIENCE IS METHDOLOGY, NOT AGENCY; AGENCY NECESARILY PRECEDES METHDOLOGY.

IF MORONS LIKE YOU WERE THE UNIVERSAL NORM, WE’D STILL BE LIVING IN CAVES.

FURTHER NOT ONLY DO I UNDERSTAND THE NATUE OF PHILOSOHY AND SCIENCE, THE NATURAL ORDER OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, BUT I KNOW INFINITELY MORE THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOWN ABOUT THE PERTINENT FORMAL, PHYSICAL, BIOLOGICAL, ASTRONOMICAL AND COSMOLOGICAL SCIENCES.

SHUT. UP.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.

The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.

Get over it people.

.

Behold: another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system. You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are. SHUT. UP.

 

[G.T.]

Behold, m.d. thinks that the law of identity can be said to BE god by.
........


Mere assertion,



And said assertion NEEDS to be true for the TAG to work,


Hence the tag is not a good rational argument for GOD because it begs the question and mpta is NOT an axiom, it is.an assertion.

 

[Hollie]

.
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.

Actually, Hollie has thought it through. Hollie has thought it through enough to point out your dishonest attempts proving your gods with bad analogies, false comparisons and utterly silly justifications for your alleged “logical” pwoofs.

Among my favorite absurdities of yours are the laughable demonstrations of circular reasoning.

Among the moments of comedy gold that are classic Rawling’isms” is:
“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”


Classic! We’re to accept that any argument contrary to what M. Pompous Rawling rattles on with regarding his gods is actually an argument in support of his gods.

I’ve noticed that M. Pompous Rawling is befuddled regarding his own inability to even proffer a consistent argument. He will alternately and carelessly waffles back and forth, stumbling over his confusion regarding a “logic” argument vs. a “philosophical” argument. He generally retreats to the “philosophical” weasel when his alleged logical arguments are pointed out as being amateurish and self-refuting.


This is why religious fundamentalists such as Rawling tend to run screaming from actual discussion regarding the hard science and evidence they are unable to provide for their claims to magical gods and supernatural realms and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.


Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.


The standards of rationality, evidence and fact are the only benchmark by which we discriminate those beliefs that hold validity towards acceptance from those that do not. When we abandon these standards, when we consider them unimportant, then we will be at the mercy of any nonsensical claim that happens to come our way. We will have no standards by which to distinguish that which maintains an analog of consistency from that which does not. The result is we succumb to being at the mercy of one quasi-intellectual fad after another. This is quite common nowadays. You see people going from one cult of Eastern mysticism to a cult of psychology to later trying one of the larger organized religions and back and forth, careening off of one intellectual dead end to another. This is the logical consequence when reason is abandoned. There is no longer a grounding-point or a means of discriminating between fact and self-serving / viciously circular claims such as: "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”

Hollie! THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT IS AN AXIOM OF HUMAN COGNITION, JUST LIKE 2 + 2 = 4; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT A SCIENTIC PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU KEEP THINKING I'M SAYING. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE. I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS! IF I'M NOT SAYING THAT, AND I'M NOT, THEN EVERYTHING IN YOUR POST IN THE ABOVE IS WRONG.

LOGICAL PROOFS ≠ SCIENTIFIC PROOFS!

AND SCIENCE IS CONTINGENT ON PHILOSOPHY, ONLY MORONS DON'T KNOW THAT; INDEED, EVERYTHING IN YOUR POST IS PHILOSOPHY. IT'S BAD PHILOSOPHY, STUPID PHILOSPHY, THE PHILOSOPHY OF A RAVING LUNATIC, BUT PHILOSOPHY JUST THE SAME.

ONLY MORONS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT CONCEPTUALIZATIONS (MATHEMATICAL, GEOMETRIC, LINGUISTIC . . . ) ARE NOT DERIVED FROM SCIENCE, BUT ARE DERIVED FROM THE CONTENTS OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS, THAT THEY NECESSARILY PRECEDE SCIENCE, THAT WE CANNOT DO SCIENCE WITHOUT THESE RATIONAL AXIOMS AND THE POSTULATES AND THEOREMS THEREOF, THAT PHILOSOPHY IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH WE DEFINE AND DELINEATE THE METAPHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF EXISTENTS, WHICH NECESSARILY PRECEDE THE DEFINITION AND DELINEATION OF THEIR MATERIAL PROPERITES,THAT PHILOSOPHY IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH WE DEFINE THE PARAMETERS OF JUSTIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE IN BOTH RATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC TERMS, THAT SCIENCE ITSELF IS NECESSARILY PREMISED ONE PHILOSPHICAL APRIORITY OR ANOTHER IN TERMS OF ONTOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS.

THE NATURE OF SCIENCE IS METHDOLOGY, NOT AGENCY; AGENCY NECESARILY PRECEDES METHDOLOGY.

IF MORONS LIKE YOU WERE THE UNIVERSAL NORM, WE’D STILL BE LIVING IN CAVES.

FURTHER NOT ONLY DO I UNDERSTAND THE NATUE OF PHILOSOHY AND SCIENCE, THE NATURAL ORDER OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, BUT I KNOW INFINITELY MORE THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOWN ABOUT THE PERTINENT FORMAL, PHYSICAL, BIOLOGICAL, ASTRONOMICAL AND COSMOLOGICAL SCIENCES.

SHUT. UP.

Gargantuan text? Is that supposed to compensate for your inability to actually compose a coherent argument.

And once again, you feel a need to make these childish pronouncements that you know more than anyone else. That's typically a clue that the one making the pronouncement is actually an ignorant blowhard.

You and your Jehovah's Witness clone buddy should take a clue that your personal credibility has been used up.

 

[Hollie]

.

The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.

Get over it people.

.

Behold: another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system. You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are. SHUT. UP.

Behold: the dangers of religious fundamentalism... Of the Jehovah's Witness brand.

 

[Boss]

.

The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.

Get over it people.

.

Behold: another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system. You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are. SHUT. UP.

He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.

Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.

"Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.

 

[Hollie]

All this prancing around and you're a couple of ******* Jehovah's witnesses.

False. I'm not a JW in any way, shape for form, and neither is Justin. JW's reject the divinity of Christ and the Triune God. Stop being silly. Our beliefs are biblically orthodox, though, at this point, they are only marginally related to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. .

Does that come with a jingle?

 

[Hollie]

.

The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.

Get over it people.

.

Behold: another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system. You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are. SHUT. UP.

He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.

Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.

"Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.

Right. It's best we abandon logical connections and rational approaches to examination of natural processes. In fact, we need to abandon a great many conventions of reason and rationality to accept magic, supernaturalism and spirit realms.

Just believe what I tell you is true. I'm here to help, protect and guide you. Really, I am. And for your belief (plus a monetary gift that will allow me and the gods to look favorably on you), I can guide you to everlasting salvation and "heaven".

You just need to "believe".

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.