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

[emilynghiem]

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.

I would add that Jesus represents Justice, so this can align with concepts people already have.
If they don't believe Justice will ever come, they don't see how Jesus can be real and Salvation can ever happen.
If they have faith that we SHOULD seek Justice, then that's the same as seeking Jesus even though we've never seen this, we still believe it is a driving force and should be reconciled with.

If people believe in retributive justice they use authority to smash and punish and reject people.
The majority of Christians complained about are the ones that use religion for Retributive Justice, judgment
and punishment.

If people believe in Restorative Justice they seek to reconcile, correct and make peace with people for truth and justice.
This approach is criticized for being too soft, for forgiving wrongs which looks like enabling,
when actually the point is to move toward correction and restitution, and using forgiveness and healing for that purpose.

This is misunderstood but Restorative Justice is the spirit of Christ Jesus.
Most people attack the Retributive Justice approach and focus on blame for problems,
and miss the Restorative Justice which brings healing and solutions.

 

[G.T.]

Emily is person of the year I.m.o.

 

[emilynghiem]

.

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".

Hollie yes and no.
1. we use the proof system that MD presents to deal with that level of logic
2. we use the scientific proof to address what we can prove, such as
a. spiritual healing using the very methods taught in Christianity
b. healing effects on political and religious institutions in the real world
this CAN be proven to work
c. proof of the correlation between forgiveness in healing and reconciliation
and the correlation between unforgiveness and inability to heal or reconcile

Hollie, where "faith" steps in
A. in order to SEEK justice and carry it out,
one must BELIEVE it is possible first or you wouldn't try to establish justice

Another example: One must BELIEVE there is a right answer to a math problem
before you set out to get there; if you didn't BELIEVE a problem could be solved,
you wouldn't bother in the first place. So of course you'd never solve it!

But TECHNICALLY you do not always KNOW or PROVE it can be solved
until AFTER you solve it and show the answer.
But you couldn't get that answer if you waited on proof it existed first
before you took the steps to prove it! You would go in circles!

B. For forgiveness
Even though it has been SHOWN That forgiveness allows healing and correction,
each case is different.

In each case that someone forgave first, so they could solve the problems afterwards,
they had to act on FAITH that the forgiveness would work and would not be abused.

They couldn't know this in advance, before they chose to forgive.
If the forgiveness is "dependent" on the condition that X Y or Z results,
it doesn't work. it is conditional forgiveness and not real forgiveness and letting go.
So it will fail.

All the cases I have seen that worked
the person took a Leap of Faith and forgave in advance,
for the sake of healing in itself, and then got the answers afterwards.

They did not get the answers first, and then forgive afterwards.
so it is not always logical but can seem backwards or
counterintuitive!

They forgave first, restored their peace of mind,
and then used that higher state of letting go
in order to solve the problems "after they forgave"

So forgiveness takes a leap of faith.
We have to believe it is the better step to take
in order to ask for it; and then afterwards
we see the reasons and logic that follow from there.

Because it seems backwards or counterintuitive
that is why it requires some faith
to even try this step to see if it helps!

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi MD thanks for your posts and I will keep working with YOU on this to reach people YOUR approach WILL help. This is very good, but it works for people like you and me who this speaks to.

I can see where you already lose people by step 1, with the definition of God.
Some people are not there yet, so you are way ahead of the crowd and some people
may never need or respond to this high level approach. Some people need a different way
that speaks to them and you clearly go over 98% of people's heads. I can follow
the consistency of what you say, but it's because I'm already there with you.
For those who aren't, you can't expect to start on the 99th floor and reach people on the
10th, 30th, or ground floor.

I can work with you, but we need to simplify KEY points of your argument
to reach people who don't have all this same information and experience down as you do.

You are not alone, I run into this too!
When I post about spiritual healing as proveable examples of how faith in God/forgiveness/etc works
people don't get that either because they don't think it's real and don't see the connection with proving God.

Here are two suggestions

1. First you mention Wisdom
Wisdom is a perfectly consistent interpretation and meaning that can be aligned with God
if we discuss the existence of Wisdom, how do we know what it is, how
do we recognize or agree what is Wisdom and what isn't,
then we go through the sameprocess of discussing God.

Basically we CAN'T prove that Wisdom is what it is.
We are just AGREEING to cal it that.

So to you, you are proving that God exists by proving we all agree that Wisdom is real.
And what is left to be proven is that we can all agree that Wisdom comes from the
same source as what people call or associate with God.

2. about the process

it's not so much about proving your point per se

it is about answering all the objections that come up that prevent from your point being received

this is the same thing that happens when i bring up spiritual healing
people don't get that until they see it for themselves, so i cannot convnice anyone just by stating it works

what DOES help is that when people Don't get it,
they will state WHY

So we work on that instead!

We address each objection that comes up, which is finite in number

So we WORK with the objections to resovle why we aren't agreeing

it is still the proof process but it is case by case, process of elimination

So MD
A. your proof itself and your arguments ARE valid and VERY helpful to address people on that level
B. for people who don't get it, they are processing differently
so when people object and get stuck on point 1 or point 10,
let's address why they are stuck and help them through their own proof
which will not be like yours or mine

your proof can still trigger objections to arise to be resolved
so it has more than one purpose both A and B

Please do not get frustrated if people respond to B and not to A.
You have your audience also that needs A but I may be one of the few
and other people need B.

Thanks this should be published when you do finish connecting
with all the audience that your approach addresses. I would
love to help you and include this on a website for outreach.

Not everyone, very few will get your points but they are perfect and should be presented.

I am equally concerned for people who respond to you
using method B of answering their objections as part o ftheir own process

this is much broader, more people fit in that group
and eachperson has their own questions to resolve
so there is not one formula for that, except the forgiveness still applies

MD if you can Forgive that most people will use your proof
for B to address their own conflicts, then you can move forward and focus on A.

I will help you with Both!
I want you to publish your statements on webistes I plan for
Consensus on God so you can reach the right people.
The academic approach is key, so thank you and please publish your statements.
I will help you to reach the academic audiences and get this giong, it is too important
and you are right on target.

 

[BreezeWood]

He is the ground for all existence, and, of course, the universal principle of identity ... 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.

are you constrained by your scripture or simply afraid to think freely ?



This is His image and what sets us apart from all other creatures of the terrestrial order.

... of the terrestrial order -

.

 

[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.

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.

He wrote: "[t]he existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven."

In both classical logic and in constructive logic, for example, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is a proposition that, in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is inhabited by its own demonstrable proof of direct evidence; and in classical logic the metaphysical conclusion that God exists! is, of course, a logical proof that God exists! The conclusion is held to be true, as any counterargument against the MPTA is in actuality a premise for an argument that logically proves it to be true. In other words, propositionally, the MPTA is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, the substantive Object of which is a logically proven truth in classical logic. If that were not the case, the MPTA would not have this historically well-established reputation in the cannon of philosophical literature.

I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant. See how that works? He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.

It's either that or he just made up his own logical paradigm out of thin air that uses non-standard rules of justification. If that's the case, and it does appear to be the case, then I have no idea what logical paradigm he's alluding to, and I don't see how you could know what logical paradigm he's alluding to.

Is this logical paradigm something you guys have talked about in the past, in-depth and at great length? Is this logical paradigm something you guys developed? Have you guys published anything on it? Has it been peer reviewed? Can I find anything about it on the Internet? Do you have a link? I'd like to study it

In the meantime, under the historically well-established and -defined standards of formal logic (you know, real logic, with objective standards of justification, not subjective, made-up-bullshit standards, used for the expressional, mathematical and scientific proofs of academia), there exist logically justifiable proofs for God's existence.

You write: " '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."

Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
On a cold and frosty morning.

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning.​

Bottom line: if you wish to remain a cave dweller, that is, live in the Kafkaesque world of dreams wherein subjective opinions asserted as absolutes from on high prevail in spite of the objectively demonstrable facts of human cognition and academia, have at it. Keep going around and around that same mulberry tree of banalities for the rest of your life. However, should you ever choose to explore the infinitely limitless possibilities of reality, then recognize and embrace the ramifications of the universal principle of identity and move on to ever-higher apprehensions of truth.

 

[emilynghiem]

.

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

Get over it people.

.

Since percysunshine GT and me seem to agree and get this point,
how can we get MD on the same page?

I think there are at least 3 things going on here to resolve
1. I think MD is focused on the end result and not the process
and not recognizing why people aren't responding to his steps of the process
as he presents it
2. the issue of recognizing the statement above actually
HELPS people to let go of barriers so we CAN form a consensus on God.
we can get to the place where MD points to, where all conflicts will be rsolved
so we reach agreement on God, but not through the ways and means as he presents it.
3. just because we cannot prove/disprove God per se
doesn't mean we can't reach a consensus on God through human means

I can see how MD is saying that we can prove God's existence in that sense
but it is not the same form as a logical argument or we'd be done by now.
the reason it takes so long to finish the proof is that all people have to follow
it in their own way and process to prove it is universal for all people.

I see we are saying the same things in different ways
A. I am saying what matters is that we FORGIVE so we can reconcile
B. PercySunshine stated it above as "getting over it" or "letting go" which is
the secular way of saying forgiving issues emotionally
C. and MD is saying that every time someone makes an absolute statement
(there is no God) then it falls to contradiction; but he is missing is that this also
applies to people like MD who makes an absolute statement there is a God
by defining God as "X" and that's going to bring up contradictions also
because some people's proof of God relies on God being Y or A or B or C
and just reconciling with other people who define God as D E F, etc.

he is right, about running into contradictions
but to prove this, each person runs into their OWN contradictions.
it follows the VERY pattern MD points out, so he is right,
but to PROVE the pattern takes each person going through their
own version of the proof, an din theprocess, God is not just X
but also A B C , 1 2 3, X Y Z, and any number of versions for
every group or religion on the planet and every person with a different system.

not everyone is going to respond to MD assertion that God = X
God being infinite is going to be all the combinations of
God = (fill in the blank) and the proof is coming to the agreed
understanding that all these definitions or meanings point to the same higher source.

God = unconditional or all encompassing love
God = truth or wisdom
God = life or nature
God = good will
God = universal laws or truth, collective knowledge
God = all creation combined
etc.
all these can be aligned but not everyone
is going to understand God = X as MD defines God

thanks GT and PercySunshine

If MD and all of us can get on the same page,
he can write a book and go for person of the century,
and/or win a Nobel Prize for forming a consensus on God
through math and science. I will help him edit into layperson English,
or draw pretty pictures so his book will not be too dry! ;-)

 

[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".

Hollie yes and no.
1. we use the proof system that MD presents to deal with that level of logic
2. we use the scientific proof to address what we can prove, such as
a. spiritual healing using the very methods taught in Christianity
b. healing effects on political and religious institutions in the real world
this CAN be proven to work
c. proof of the correlation between forgiveness in healing and reconciliation
and the correlation between unforgiveness and inability to heal or reconcile

Hollie, where "faith" steps in
A. in order to SEEK justice and carry it out,
one must BELIEVE it is possible first or you wouldn't try to establish justice

Another example: One must BELIEVE there is a right answer to a math problem
before you set out to get there; if you didn't BELIEVE a problem could be solved,
you wouldn't bother in the first place. So of course you'd never solve it!

But TECHNICALLY you do not always KNOW or PROVE it can be solved
until AFTER you solve it and show the answer.
But you couldn't get that answer if you waited on proof it existed first
before you took the steps to prove it! You would go in circles!

B. For forgiveness
Even though it has been SHOWN That forgiveness allows healing and correction,
each case is different.

In each case that someone forgave first, so they could solve the problems afterwards,
they had to act on FAITH that the forgiveness would work and would not be abused.

They couldn't know this in advance, before they chose to forgive.
If the forgiveness is "dependent" on the condition that X Y or Z results,
it doesn't work. it is conditional forgiveness and not real forgiveness and letting go.
So it will fail.

All the cases I have seen that worked
the person took a Leap of Faith and forgave in advance,
for the sake of healing in itself, and then got the answers afterwards.

They did not get the answers first, and then forgive afterwards.
so it is not always logical but can seem backwards or
counterintuitive!

They forgave first, restored their peace of mind,
and then used that higher state of letting go
in order to solve the problems "after they forgave"

So forgiveness takes a leap of faith.
We have to believe it is the better step to take
in order to ask for it; and then afterwards
we see the reasons and logic that follow from there.

Because it seems backwards or counterintuitive
that is why it requires some faith
to even try this step to see if it helps!

Emily. Please stop being so gawd-damn nice. It's pissin' me off!

Firstly, We clearly don't use the "pwoof" system used by M. Pompous Rawling. Those are not pwoofs at all but as admitted to by his pom pom flailing groupie, explicit admissions of promoting fundamentalist Christian dogma. If you have read through the Pwoofs of gods offered by M. Pompous Rawling, you'd see pretty quickly it's question begging ad absurdum. Begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.

In clear and sharp contrast to regurgitating fundie dogma, It is precisely our ability to reason that brings the mysterious to understanding. You may have eternal "faith" in the sun rising and travelling around the vault of the sky, but one would be wrong eternally; it is science and reason that pulled the curtains from our eyes and showed us that it is the earth that turns, not the sun that tracks.

This brings us to the next level of the fundamentalists' argument, which is that truth is arbitrary in any event-- ultimately, one must have faith in a particular, partisan version of god(s) to have knowledge, or ability to perceive knowledge in the first place.

Rebutting the latter assertion is easy, because no one can claim with any hope of being taken seriously that there is ultimately no such thing as knowledge. The assertion itself contradicts its own premise, since if it's true, then it becomes knowledge, and the assertion dies. If it is not true, then it needn't be considered.

What is comically tragic about the lies and deceit furthered by the two, primary apologists in this thread is the twisted and skewed basis for their claims to magic and supernaturalism. Many apologists have grappled long and hard on the issue of faith, and ultimately none of them have worked out the inherent dilemma that faith is, in fact, the acceptance of assertions regardless of factual evidence. What they have done instead is focused on the possible versus the probable, and this has confused the issue to a degree that many philosophers, both theists and rationalists, can no longer define the difference.

There has long been the argument that unless we have a totality of knowledge (i.e., omniscience), we cannot know for sure whether their is a god or not, or whether there are realms of existence other than our own. Are such things possible? Well, since we don't have omniscience, we are forced to say, "yes, they are possible." The question is not whether something as irrational as god is possible, but is it probable? Given the evidence of all of nature that surrounds us, the answer is no.



Lastly, I think you trample the divide that separates faith and trust. What we must understand about faith is that it is often confused with trust. The theist usually argues that we have faith in things all the time; for example, we have faith that gravity will keep us from flying off the planet, or we have faith in friends, or doctors, etc. We do not have faith in these things, we have trust in them, and we have trust in them as long as they continue to warrant that trust.

 

[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.

He wrote: "[t]he existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven."

In both classical logic and in constructive logic, for example, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is a proposition that, in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is inhabited by its own demonstrable proof of direct evidence; and in classical logic the metaphysical conclusion that God exists! is, of course, a logical proof that God exists! The conclusion is held to be true, as any counterargument against the MPTA is in actuality a premise for an argument that logically proves it to be true. In other words, propositionally, the MPTA is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, the substantive Object of which is a logically proven truth in classical logic. If that were not the case, the MPTA would not have this historically well-established reputation in the cannon of philosophical literature.

I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant. See how that works? He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.

It's either that or he just made up his own logical paradigm out of thin air that uses non-standard rules of justification. If that's the case, and it does appear to be the case, then I have no idea what logical paradigm he's alluding to, and I don't see how you could know what logical paradigm he's alluding to.

Is this logical paradigm something you guys have talked about in the past, in-depth and at great length? Is this logical paradigm something you guys developed? Have you guys published anything on it? Has it been peer reviewed? Can I find anything about it on the Internet? Do you have a link? I'd like to study it

In the meantime, under the historically well-established and -defined standards of formal logic (you know, real logic, with objective standards of justification, not subjective, made-up-bullshit standards, used for the expressional, mathematical and scientific proofs of academia), there exist logically justifiable proofs for God's existence.

You write: " '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."

Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
On a cold and frosty morning.

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning.​

Bottom line: if you wish to remain a cave dweller, that is, live in the Kafkaesque world of dreams wherein subjective opinions asserted as absolutes from on high prevail in spite of the objectively demonstrable facts of human cognition and academia, have at it. Keep going around and around that same mulberry tree of banalities for the rest of your life. However, should you ever choose to explore the infinitely limitless possibilities of reality, then recognize and embrace the ramifications of the universal principle of identity and move on to ever-higher apprehensions of truth.

Yep, the uncreated creator™, weasel.

When your claims to the supernatural are utterly vacuous, beyond reasonable expectation of support, totally bankrupt and useless for grown-up conversation, simply respond with: " but... but... but.... but... but the uncreated creator resolves all the failures of the argument for supernaturalism"

 

[emilynghiem]

.

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.

He wrote: "[t]he existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven."

In both classical logic and in constructive logic, for example, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is a proposition that, in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is inhabited by its own demonstrable proof of direct evidence; and in classical logic the metaphysical conclusion that God exists! is, of course, a logical proof that God exists! The conclusion is held to be true, as any counterargument against the MPTA is in actuality a premise for an argument that logically proves it to be true. In other words, propositionally, the MPTA is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, the substantive Object of which is a logically proven truth in classical logic. If that were not the case, the MPTA would not have this historically well-established reputation in the cannon of philosophical literature.

I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant. See how that works? He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.

It's either that or he just made up his own logical paradigm out of thin air that uses non-standard rules of justification. If that's the case, and it does appear to be the case, then I have no idea what logical paradigm he's alluding to, and I don't see how you could know what logical paradigm he's alluding to.

Is this logical paradigm something you guys have talked about in the past, in-depth and at great length? Is this logical paradigm something you guys developed? Have you guys published anything on it? Has it been peer reviewed? Can I find anything about it on the Internet? Do you have a link? I'd like to study it

In the meantime, under the historically well-established and -defined standards of formal logic (you know, real logic, with objective standards of justification, not subjective, made-up-bullshit standards, used for the expressional, mathematical and scientific proofs of academia), there exist logically justifiable proofs for God's existence.

You write: " '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."

Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
On a cold and frosty morning.

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning.​

Bottom line: if you wish to remain a cave dweller, that is, live in the Kafkaesque world of dreams wherein subjective opinions asserted as absolutes from on high prevail in spite of the objectively demonstrable facts of human cognition and academia, have at it. Keep going around and around that same mulberry tree of banalities for the rest of your life. However, should you ever choose to explore the infinitely limitless possibilities of reality, then recognize and embrace the ramifications of the universal principle of identity and move on to ever-higher apprehensions of truth.

Hi MD:

1. Do you agree that not every defines God the same way?
So if one person assigns 2 to mean * * *
and another assigns 2 to mean * * * * *
just because you are saying "this proves 2 exists"
doesn't mean you have proven it is the same thing.
the next person can be saying 2 = something false
Like how Hollie says Christian God = made up mythical bogeyman that is used to scare people into following along

You think this doesn't matter?

A. what about people whose beliefs what God or Allah is
will kill in the name of "God's will"

Just proving "God exists by definition"
is not enough to establish a consistent understanding of God.
So what is the purpose?

You can run around telling kids in school who are struggling to use
math to get the right answers "Hey everyone! math exists! by using
symbols, we prove by definition it has value and meaning so it is real!"'
but what good does that do for students trying to learn to use the math?

I can see you using your approach to help kids who are AFRAID of
math and are rejecting it, but you show math is neutral and is just
the symbolism for Quantities that exist ANYWAY. Not everyone needs
your approach to get over the fear of math and to focus on the quantities it represents.

I think that same concept can be taught and shared without going into such deep argumetns.
Not everyone needs that.

B. Do you have any idea what is BLOCKING people
from understanding the concept you present?

You remind me of teachers who present the material
but ignore the PROCESS the students have to go through to get it and follow.

What is blocking people are conflicts in A above.

Because people have seen God = something negative
they get emotionally blocked.

MD until you address the HUMAN factor you are preaching at deaf ears or blank walls.

We have to first address what causes the rejection
of religion and God to heal the hurts causing walls and barriers!

MD can you imagine if you are trying to teach a rape victim
not to be afraid of men who remind that person of the attacker?

Do you just keep PREACHING hey you idiot
NOT ALL MEN are rapists! the science shows this.
look at the stats. More men are NOT rapists.
Not all men of that description are bad!

MD you can preach all the logic you want,
state all the stats, and that poor rape victim
is still going to avoid making contact with
people who trigger traumatic response
while they are healing from the attack.

these are human beings you are dealing with.
not machines
not math calculators

Human beings with emotional responses
who have seen much religious abuse
and have been insulted and attacked for
not understanding God and Christianity
given how this is twisted into very negative abusive mob behavior.

Can you please consider the psychology
of the people who are processing the information?

 

[dblack]

I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant. See how that works? He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.

Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!

And of course ....

Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.

... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!

I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

I would add that Jesus represents Justice, so this can align with concepts people already have.
If they don't believe Justice will ever come, they don't see how Jesus can be real and Salvation can ever happen.
If they have faith that we SHOULD seek Justice, then that's the same as seeking Jesus even though we've never seen this, we still believe it is a driving force and should be reconciled with.

If people believe in retributive justice they use authority to smash and punish and reject people.
The majority of Christians complained about are the ones that use religion for Retributive Justice, judgment
and punishment.

If people believe in Restorative Justice they seek to reconcile, correct and make peace with people for truth and justice.
This approach is criticized for being too soft, for forgiving wrongs which looks like enabling,
when actually the point is to move toward correction and restitution, and using forgiveness and healing for that purpose.

This is misunderstood but Restorative Justice is the spirit of Christ Jesus.
Most people attack the Retributive Justice approach and focus on blame for problems,
and miss the Restorative Justice which brings healing and solutions.

I don't disagree with any of that, but there is no justice without truth. Many will never accept truth, but will always lie. Lying is very much like murder. Those who will lie about objective truths or lie about the nature of other's ideas, would murder those who stand for truth had they the power to do so with impunity. That's what I know about human nature and the nature of things, and that's why the followers of Christ are sheep for the slaughter.

 

[Hollie]

I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant. See how that works? He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.

Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!

And of course ....

Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.

... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!

I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!

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.

I would add that Jesus represents Justice, so this can align with concepts people already have.
If they don't believe Justice will ever come, they don't see how Jesus can be real and Salvation can ever happen.
If they have faith that we SHOULD seek Justice, then that's the same as seeking Jesus even though we've never seen this, we still believe it is a driving force and should be reconciled with.

If people believe in retributive justice they use authority to smash and punish and reject people.
The majority of Christians complained about are the ones that use religion for Retributive Justice, judgment
and punishment.

If people believe in Restorative Justice they seek to reconcile, correct and make peace with people for truth and justice.
This approach is criticized for being too soft, for forgiving wrongs which looks like enabling,
when actually the point is to move toward correction and restitution, and using forgiveness and healing for that purpose.

This is misunderstood but Restorative Justice is the spirit of Christ Jesus.
Most people attack the Retributive Justice approach and focus on blame for problems,
and miss the Restorative Justice which brings healing and solutions.

I don't disagree with any of that, but there is no justice without truth. Many will never accept truth, but will always lie. Lying is very much like murder. Those who will lie about objective truths or lie about the nature of other's ideas, would murder those who stand for truth had they the power to do so with impunity. That's what I know about human nature and the nature of things, and that's why the followers of Christ are sheep for the slaughter.

Preach it, brotha'.

Isn't martyrdom fun?

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

It's both an axiom and an assertion. Axioms are assertions. Assertions may or may not be axioms, like your subject assertion or opinion stated like an absolute axiom, which flies in the face of an objective fact of reality. And Rawlings is not arguing a divine law of identity as something that is scientifically verified. He's arguing that the principle of identity is universally hardwired biologically. That's an intuitive and scientific fact of neurological structure and chemistry. He's also pointing out that this fact and the fact that the MPTA is logically true in classical logic points to God's existence. It's just some of the evidence for God's existence. If you don't believe this objectively derived evidence is sufficient for a belief in God nobody's holding a gun to your head, but you don't have the right to make up your own facts and pretend you don't know what he's actually saying. Stop lying and tell the truth. Neither Rawlings nor I have ever said that our personal conclusions from the evidence about the ultimate identity of this principle can be scientifically verified. Mulberry tree.

 

[Justin Davis]

.
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.

It shows that you are wrong about everything.

 

[Justin Davis]

.

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".

All of you, you, Boss, dbalck, G.T. have abandoned logic and rationality, making up your own rules of logic as you go along always asserting personal, subjective opinions based on no arguments that hold up against anything objective.

 

[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.

It shows that you are wrong about everything.

If you say so.

 

[Hollie]

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.

It's both an axiom and an assertion. Axioms are assertions. Assertions may or may not be axioms, like your subject assertion or opinion stated like an absolute axiom, which flies in the face of an objective fact of reality. And Rawlings is not arguing a divine law of identity as something that is scientifically verified. He's arguing that the principle of identity is universally hardwired biologically. That's an intuitive and scientific fact of neurological structure and chemistry. He's also pointing out that this fact and the fact that the MPTA is logically true in classical logic points to God's existence. It's just some of the evidence for God's existence. If you don't believe this objectively derived evidence is sufficient for a belief in God nobody's holding a gun to your head, but you don't have the right to make up your own facts and pretend you don't know what he's actually saying. Stop lying and tell the truth. Neither Rawlings nor I have ever said that our personal conclusions from the evidence about the ultimate identity of this principle can be scientifically verified. Mulberry tree.

Pom Pom flailing.

 

[Justin Davis]

.

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.

He's not and you're not right. You've been shown over and over again why what you're saying can't be right or makes any sense at all. But then again hey just go with your subjective make it up logic and pretend formal logic doesn't exist and use your "prejudiced perceptions." So just ignore the objective facts Rawlings showed you and just make up your own facts. Great. That’s work. Not.

 

[Justin Davis]

I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant. See how that works? He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.

Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!

And of course ....

Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.

... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!

I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!

You start with indefensible preconceptions that are purely subjective and think your right and say you're absolutely right. What's the difference? We're just supposed to take your word on your crap? The funny thing about all this is that you never back anything you say with things like facts, logic, arguments, science. Ya got nothing like that anywhere. All you got is misrepresentations of what Rawlings and I have said because apparently you're scared of telling the truth. Oh, and you sneer while you say stupid things. You quote a factual statement. That quote is true. What's the problem?