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

[Hollie]

Boom shakalaka boom! I heard that last nail go in all the way from Alabamy. I think the noise of it broke the sound barrier. My ears hurt. Dovotee of Ayn Rand. Yeah I've read some of her stuff. She's okay on some of her first principles but then she goes off the rails into la-la land. It's like reading a two-old trying to talk about a theory of everything about a pile of nothing.

That's the hook, the obvious first principles that no one denies, followed by a heaping pile of subjective mush that's supposed to be objective. LOL!

"Existence exists!" she says. "Consciousness presupposes existence!" she says. No you-know-what, Sherlock, so exactly how does the incoherent gibberish that existence necessarily has primacy over all of consciousness, which begs the question to get rid God, follow? From thereon out it's all down hill, sheer idiocy. In fact, I'm going to edit my post in the above, insert the term idiot savant. By the way, if you want a good laugh read this from my blog: Prufrock s Lair Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science

Also, on a more serious note: Prufrock s Lair Objectivism The Uninspired Religion of Reason

It appears that you and your Pom Pom flailer have more in common with Ayn Rand than you would hope to admit.

You two rattle on with your silly FiveThings™ pwoofs followed by stuttering and mumbling tirades attempting to use "Logic" in utterly pointless attempts to pwoof your partisan gawds.

If you two weren't such caricatures of unreasonable, unthinking fundamentalist zealots, you wouldn't be so comically tragic.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"The major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, not kind of like or sort of like, but just like 2 + 2 = 4! The MPTAG is intuitively and, therefore, axiomatically true. It's cogency cannot be logically denied or refuted. It's a cognitively direct and absolute proof."

Umm, no - it's a mere opinion of yours and apologetics.

I dont care if every Religious person in the history of man wrote about it, it is not sound reasoning and is not any more "incontrovertible" than "knowledge just is," hence it's poor to use as a premise for a proof. It's not absolute, it's not an axiom and it's damned well begging the question.

2+2=4 does not beg the question.

2 is not presupposed, it is observable.

Jeebus.

Of course 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't beg the question, you idiot. That's the point. Only a few of those men are Christians. The rest are secular philosophers. Nobody of peer-reviewed academia holds that the MPTAG formally begs the question. We don't say that intuitive absolutes (axioms or tautologies) beg the question, you dunce. The MPTAG is an undeniable, irrefutable axiom just like 2 + 2 = 4. But then you understood what I was saying anyway, didn't you?

And, no, the number 2 as such or any of the other rational constructs, axioms, postulates or theorems of mathematics are observable entities of physical substance. LOL! Has the cheese slid off your cracker? Show me the number 2 that exists in nature outside the confines of human consciousness. Is it attached to a low-hanging branch of a tree in your backyard? Maybe it's on the Moon or hanging off a star? Or are you're talking about a number 2 written on a piece of paper as extracted from the contents of human consciousness and tacked to a wall?

 

[Justin Davis]

You can't prove it. No one can. But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out. God tells us he's here.

The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?

IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through reason contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.

Science holds that God doesn't exist? Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.

I've noted consistently that,

1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,

2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.

If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.

There is no standard of proof in science. Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified. Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified. Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply. Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading. We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about. All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things. So what? Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does. I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science. I don't drink Kool-aid.

It's The Five Things™ is pwoof of of nothing and won't help you sidestep and waffle.

There is no reason to accept that your partisan version of gawds are the only gawds. There could be a unionized syndicate of available gawds.

Why are you trying to sidestep such an acknowledgement?

Why is Zeus any more or less a candidate for title of Gawd, the Big Cheese than your gawds.

You can't prove it. No one can. But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out. God tells us he's here.

The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?

IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through reason contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.

Science holds that God doesn't exist? Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.

I've noted consistently that,

1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,

2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.

If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.

There is no standard of proof in science. Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified. Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified. Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply. Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading. We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about. All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things. So what? Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does. I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science. I don't drink Kool-aid.

For all your sidestepping and evading, it's obvious you're befuddled. You were able to cobble together one accurate statement in that science makes no absolute claims. However, you then go on to state that "logic" can and does verify "spiritual" things. I suppose that's good to know because we can then use logic to verify Zeus, Osiris, Jupiter, etc.

As I noted before, "logic" is much a pwoof for your versions of gods as it is for all the other gods. The Five Things™ is pwoof of nothing and won't help you sidestep and waffle.

There is no reason to accept that your partisan version of gawds are the only gawds. There could be a unionized syndicate of available gawds.

Why are you trying to sidestep such an acknowledgement?

Why is Zeus any more or less a candidate for title of Gawd, the Big Cheese than your gawds.

 

[G.T.]

I'm talking about what the number two describes, clown shoes.

And again, knowledge needing a source is not maxi magic, knowledge COULD just be, go ahead and prove that it couldn't, absolutely.

Dork.

 

[Justin Davis]

2 is not presupposed, it is observable.

 

[Justin Davis]

That's the hook, the obvious first principles that no one denies, followed by a heaping pile of subjective mush that's supposed to be objective. LOL!

"Existence exists!" she says. "Consciousness presupposes existence!" she says. No you-know-what, Sherlock, so exactly how does the incoherent gibberish that existence necessarily has primacy over all of consciousness, which begs the question to get rid God, follow? From thereon out it's all down hill, sheer idiocy. In fact, I'm going to edit my post in the above, insert the term idiot savant. By the way, if you want a good laugh read this from my blog: Prufrock s Lair Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science

Also, on a more serious note: Prufrock s Lair Objectivism The Uninspired Religion of Reason

You're killing me, smalls. That's funny!

Kevin takes a deep breath. A shimmer of tears threatens to spill over. “I can’t believe I fell for it,” he sniffs. “I mean . . . I’m not a stupid man.” I wave off the camera. “I was in a bad place, ya know? My wife had left me, and the kids hated me, especially the eldest. Even my dog turned on me. There was so much stress in my life . . . and Objectivism promised a way out. Next thing I know, I’m smoking’ five packs of coffin nails a day and my shelves are lined with hundreds of dollars of books and pamphlets filled with rank stupidity.”​

"Eight balls of pure N."

I get the allusions, but who is Bumbalough?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!

The possibility ... cannot be logically ruled out!

because there is a possibility, does not describe the actual existing condition.


... including the cosmological order

I believe the Creator exists within the Everlasting and did not create that state and the Everlasting is tangentially responsible for the cosmological order to what exists / does not exist within it.

all hail the Creator, but that the Creator is among many ...


GT makes sense at the same level as MD the Proselytizer, -

amen.

.

"because there is a possibility, does not describe the actual existing condition."

Possibility does not necessarily equal actuality? That's what #3 says. So you agree with it right? So the Everlasting is your name for the ultimate ground of all other things, the ultimate God or Creator right? That's what #3 says. So you agree with it right?

Amen.

So the Everlasting is your name for the ultimate ground of all other things, the ultimate God or Creator right?

no, it is the state for existence and will always be -

continuing to exist Spiritually would have been an accomplishment for the Creator first and is possible for whatever may attempt the feat, the Everlasting - what comes afterwards can be anything.

"your" TAG =/= Christianity, so what really is your point if recognized that does not satisfy the same for all other religions ?

.

 

[Hollie]

The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?

IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through reason contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.

Science holds that God doesn't exist? Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.

I've noted consistently that,

1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,

2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.

If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.

There is no standard of proof in science. Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified. Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified. Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply. Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading. We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about. All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things. So what? Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does. I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science. I don't drink Kool-aid.

It's The Five Things™ is pwoof of of nothing and won't help you sidestep and waffle.

There is no reason to accept that your partisan version of gawds are the only gawds. There could be a unionized syndicate of available gawds.

Why are you trying to sidestep such an acknowledgement?

Why is Zeus any more or less a candidate for title of Gawd, the Big Cheese than your gawds.

The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?

IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through reason contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.

Science holds that God doesn't exist? Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.

I've noted consistently that,

1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,

2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.

If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.

There is no standard of proof in science. Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified. Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified. Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply. Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading. We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about. All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things. So what? Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does. I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science. I don't drink Kool-aid.

For all your sidestepping and evading, it's obvious you're befuddled. You were able to cobble together one accurate statement in that science makes no absolute claims. However, you then go on to state that "logic" can and does verify "spiritual" things. I suppose that's good to know because we can then use logic to verify Zeus, Osiris, Jupiter, etc.

As I noted before, "logic" is much a pwoof for your versions of gods as it is for all the other gods. The Five Things™ is pwoof of nothing and won't help you sidestep and waffle.

There is no reason to accept that your partisan version of gawds are the only gawds. There could be a unionized syndicate of available gawds.

Why are you trying to sidestep such an acknowledgement?

Why is Zeus any more or less a candidate for title of Gawd, the Big Cheese than your gawds.

You should note that I didn't really expect you would try and address the obvious implication of what you proposed. That would have taken some personal integrity and honesty on your part.

It was a simple exercise but also an exercise in futility dealing with religious extremists. Gag a zealot. Shake a shiny object before his crazed eyes to get his attention. Calmly delineate in simple declarative sentences of user-friendly monosyllables a logical progression of concepts for competing gawds that the zealot uses to pwoof his gawds. Nod reassuringly. Slowly remove the gag. It is inevitable that the zealot will defiantly screech and sputter something as cogent as ...

 

[emilynghiem]

You can't prove it. No one can. But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out. God tells us he's here.

The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?

IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through reason contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.

Science holds that God doesn't exist? Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.

I've noted consistently that,

1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,

2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.

If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.

There is no standard of proof in science. Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified. Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified. Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply. Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading. We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about. All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things. So what? Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does. I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science. I don't drink Kool-aid.

Right on, Justin! That's the problem with the things that Boss and Emily are saying about proofs, or about things that can't be proven or disproven. Ultimately they're talking about scientific verification or falsification, and I'm going to address why what Emily is saying about things like eternity and infinity and perfection do not hold up in logic or math or science, for that matter, precisely because of her misuse of these terms.

Hi MD I think we are talking past each other.
I'm not saying the SYMBOLISM cannot be proven to be consistent.

I'm saying that because we cannot perceive and empirically experience God in full form
we cannot prove that level.

We can prove representations and work within that framework
but God of course is beyond the scope of man.

I have a friend who could probably explain what I mean that this cannot be proven directly.

My online friend Nirmaldasan was given that goat-goat-car problem off Marilyn Vos Savant's website.
But since in real life you only get ONE shot at picking the door (or you can switch) but it's still ONE trial.

He could NOT understand this 2 out of 3 chances or 1 out of 3.
Because you don't get 3 picks and then show that 2/3 or 1/3 end up being the car or goat.

You only get 1 shot so he was saying it was 50/50
either 0% getting the car or 100%.

Since we could not set up a ONE SHOT trial that would prove to him it was 2/3
he couldn't follow that. All the math calculations and averages over MULTIPLE trials show 2/3
but he kept saying "you only get one trial, not 3, not 100"

So it could never be proven in real life to him.

He had some other issue, where he didn't trust academics who thought they
were smarter than people with common sense.

So that was blocking him from understanding the math
or accepting the answer.

The math proves it, but logistically for people to FOLLOW the proof
and BELIEVE / UNDERSTAND it is another level.

(NOTE: even when a computer programmer I know studied this car/goat/goat problem,
and KNEW that 2/3 was the right answer, and DID TRIALS himself to get 2/3 on average,
his BRAIN still didn't get why it wasn't coming out 50/50 as he thought. It was counterintuitive
and his brain kept thinking two doors two choices should be 50/50.

so even if someone KNOWS it is the right answer and is getting it physically,
there is still a process in the brain someone has to go through to RECONCILE it)

Sorry to get off track, MD

I have found that people WILL come to agree on this
but just not the way you or I may think it happens.

MD the realization and knowledge you and I have is still faith based.
(Heck, I can't even prove to MYSELF what I dreamed last night, or what
anyone else dreams, and we have to take THAT on faith, though we can
prove scientifically that are brains go into dream states, etc.)

You and I are at peace with that understanding,
some people are and some people aren't. Most are still searching
and this has been the classic struggle of man since becoming self-aware:
how to reconcile our own will and perceptions with that of others and the collective whole.

My boyfriend is at peace knowing there is some kind of God (But doesn't get the Christian approach AT ALL) and can't explain his own secular approach
to his agnostic brother who has to come to his own peace of mind and realization his way.

I think it is FASCINATING how you present one way to let go and get there,
my boyfriend let go and found his own way, I have my own way which is weirder than
everyone's else combined, and each person I know has their own way.

Each proof can work in itself, but each person may have to experience it and
reach an understanding in their own way. just like that car-goat-goat/3 doors problem.
Some people figure it out mathematically, some by live trials, and one person had to
do both and still couldn't reconcile why his mind was stuck on 50/50 and the answer
he KNEW was correct was 2/3 1/3. I thought that was fascinating, and this guy
was TRYING to resolve it and KNEW the answer was right, but his brain wasn't following.

My friend Nirmaldasan is convinced the 2/3 answer is wrong, because he is emotionally and socially opposed to the elitist academia. So I was focusing on building trust to resolve that issue, while everyone else was yelling about the math and calling him names, which didn't help.

The most I could explain is YES you do get 50/50 results when you treat the two doors as equal 50/50 chances and just pick one. So there IS a way to show how both Nirmaldasan was right, and also the mathematical answer that if you follow the history of the doors and don't treat them as equal choices of 50/50 then you get the 2/3 1/3 probability instead.

It was terrible that the one trial we ran, he got the car, so he explained it was because his chances were 50/50 not 2/3 that he got it right in one trial. The only chance I thought we had to explain how it is right to get 2/3 1/3 is to explain that both he and the others are right:
A. if you treat the two doors as equal 50/50 choices and ignore the history, if you pick completely randomly, then you will get 50/50 chance of either the car or the goat behind the remaining doors.
B. if you do as Marilyn and the mathematicians suggest, and switch to the other door,
your chances are weighted higher at 2/3 for the remaining door to have the car.

If I tell Nirmaldasan yes, there is a way you are right also, I have a better chance of getting through to him than if I tell him NO you are WRONG.

There IS a way to get 50/50 results. If I can explain without insulting him, maybe he would listen and eventually understand both answers.

Marilyn vos Savant bull View topic - Game Show Problem

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

That's the hook, the obvious first principles that no one denies, followed by a heaping pile of subjective mush that's supposed to be objective. LOL!

"Existence exists!" she says. "Consciousness presupposes existence!" she says. No you-know-what, Sherlock, so exactly how does the incoherent gibberish that existence necessarily has primacy over all of consciousness, which begs the question to get rid God, follow? From thereon out it's all down hill, sheer idiocy. In fact, I'm going to edit my post in the above, insert the term idiot savant. By the way, if you want a good laugh read this from my blog: Prufrock s Lair Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science

Also, on a more serious note: Prufrock s Lair Objectivism The Uninspired Religion of Reason

You're killing me, smalls. That's funny!

Kevin takes a deep breath. A shimmer of tears threatens to spill over. “I can’t believe I fell for it,” he sniffs. “I mean . . . I’m not a stupid man.” I wave off the camera. “I was in a bad place, ya know? My wife had left me, and the kids hated me, especially the eldest. Even my dog turned on me. There was so much stress in my life . . . and Objectivism promised a way out. Next thing I know, I’m smoking’ five packs of coffin nails a day and my shelves are lined with hundreds of dollars of books and pamphlets filled with rank stupidity.”​

"Eight balls of pure N."

I get the allusions, but who is Bumbalough?

He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website. I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.

I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups. It's not easy. It's like a cult, akin to Scientology. These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics. I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.

But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs. I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending. I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on. But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . . When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation. LOL!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hi MD I think we are talking past each other.
I'm not saying the SYMBOLISM cannot be proven to be consistent.

I'm saying that because we cannot perceive and empirically experience God in full form
we cannot prove that level.

We can prove representations and work within that framework
but God of course is beyond the scope of man.

I have a friend who could probably explain what I mean that this cannot be proven directly.

My online friend Nirmaldasan was given that goat-goat-car problem off Marilyn Vos Savant's website.
But since in real life you only get ONE shot at picking the door (or you can switch) but it's still ONE trial.

He could NOT understand this 2 out of 3 chances or 1 out of 3.
Because you don't get 3 picks and then show that 2/3 or 1/3 end up being the car or goat.

You only get 1 shot so he was saying it was 50/50
either 0% getting the car or 100%.

Since we could not set up a ONE SHOT trial that would prove to him it was 2/3
he couldn't follow that. All the math calculations and averages over MULTIPLE trials show 2/3
but he kept saying "you only get one trial, not 3, not 100"

So it could never be proven in real life to him.

He had some other issue, where he didn't trust academics who thought they
were smarter than people with common sense.

So that was blocking him from understanding the math
or accepting the answer.

The math proves it, but logistically for people to FOLLOW the proof
and BELIEVE / UNDERSTAND it is another level.

(NOTE: even when a computer programmer I know studied this car/goat/goat problem,
and KNEW that 2/3 was the right answer, and DID TRIALS himself to get 2/3 on average,
his BRAIN still didn't get why it wasn't coming out 50/50 as he thought. It was counterintuitive
and his brain kept thinking two doors two choices should be 50/50.

so even if someone KNOWS it is the right answer and is getting it physically,
there is still a process in the brain someone has to go through to RECONCILE it)

Sorry to get off track, MD

I have found that people WILL come to agree on this
but just not the way you or I may think it happens.

MD the realization and knowledge you and I have is still faith based.
You and I are at peace with that, some people are and some people aren't.

My boyfriend is at peace knowing there is some kind of God but can't explain
it to his agnostic brother who has to come to his own peace of mind and realization his way.

I think it is FASCINATING how you present one way to let go and get there,
my boyfriend let go and found his own way, I have my own way which is weirder than
everyone's else combined, and each person I know has their own way.

Well, we can't scientifically verify the substances of certain logical conceptualizations about God only because, well, He's not material. That's all. But apprehending the various attributes that would necessarily apply to the construct of an ultimate, transcendent ground for existence without begging the question is no sweat, as the construct of infinity is readily conceivable and, therefore, readily expressible in linguistic or mathematical symbology. So I think we're actually on the same page. Just bear in mind these are actual proofs. Science doesn't do proofs. It does the experimental affirmations of verification and falsification just like Justin explained.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'm talking about what the number two describes, clown shoes.

And again, knowledge needing a source is not maxi magic, knowledge COULD just be, go ahead and prove that it couldn't, absolutely.

Dork.

No. It's not described in nature either. It's cogency may be demonstrated in nature outside of our minds, albeit, only as ultimately apprehended in our minds.

And I've already shown you what real academicians already know: your argument is self-negating, futile. That will be abundantly clear again when I show it to Emily.

 

[Justin Davis]

He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website. I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.

I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups. It's not easy. It's like a cult, akin to Scientology. These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics. I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.

But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs. I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending. I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on. But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . . When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation. LOL!

I notice that the worlds of atheists get smaller and smaller with each new absurdity they assert to deny the obvious.

 

[Hollie]

He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website. I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.

I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups. It's not easy. It's like a cult, akin to Scientology. These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics. I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.

But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs. I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending. I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on. But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . . When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation. LOL!

I notice that the worlds of atheists get smaller and smaller with each new absurdity they assert to deny the obvious.

Speaking of denying the obvious, why are you such a coward that you chose to sidestep and dodge the obvious implications of the very "logic" you claim proves your gawds that also proves all the other gawds?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website. I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.

I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups. It's not easy. It's like a cult, akin to Scientology. These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics. I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.

But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs. I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending. I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on. But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . . When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation. LOL!

I notice that the worlds of atheists get smaller and smaller with each new absurdity they assert to deny the obvious.

Frankly, it was shocking to read QW, of all people, insinuating that the organic, universally indispensable principle of identity breaks down in alternate forms of logic, which, of course, is impossible; but then to see dblack, a man who I initially respected for his profound insights regarding the mind-body dichotomy, a man who struck me as someone of some expertise, a man who does grasp the necessity of philosophy's primacy over science, go all postal atheist on me and sneer at something he obviously doesn't understand as he unwittingly puts himself in the same company of rank irrationalists and idiot savants like Ayn Rand. . . .

 

[Justin Davis]

He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website. I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.

I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups. It's not easy. It's like a cult, akin to Scientology. These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics. I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.

But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs. I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending. I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on. But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . . When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation. LOL!

I notice that the worlds of atheists get smaller and smaller with each new absurdity they assert to deny the obvious.

Speaking of denying the obvious, why are you such a coward that you chose to sidestep and dodge the obvious implications of the very "logic" you claim proves your gawds that also proves all the other gawds?

You mean your imaginary, contingently anthropomorphological friends of mythology? How could they be immutably and indivisibly transcendent or ontologically supreme? I thought you were just being sarcastic again. You mean you've been serious about this idiocy all this time? You just get and with each new post. Your world just gets smaller and smaller.

 

[Hollie]

He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website. I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.

I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups. It's not easy. It's like a cult, akin to Scientology. These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics. I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.

But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs. I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending. I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on. But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . . When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation. LOL!

I notice that the worlds of atheists get smaller and smaller with each new absurdity they assert to deny the obvious.

Speaking of denying the obvious, why are you such a coward that you chose to sidestep and dodge the obvious implications of the very "logic" you claim proves your gawds that also proves all the other gawds?

You mean your imaginary, contingently anthropomorphological friends of mythology? How could they be immutably and indivisibly transcendent or ontologically supreme? I thought you were just being sarcastic again. You mean you've been serious about this idiocy all this time? You just get and with each new post. Your world just gets smaller and smaller.

Yep. Deny you're a coward. Such self-deceit is a common.

 

[G.T.]

I'm talking about what the number two describes, clown shoes.

And again, knowledge needing a source is not maxi magic, knowledge COULD just be, go ahead and prove that it couldn't, absolutely.

Dork.

No. It's not described in nature either. It's cogency may be demonstrated in nature outside of our minds, albeit, only as ultimately apprehended in our minds.

And I've already shown you what real academicians already know: your argument is self-negating, futile. That will be abundantly clear again when I show it to Emily.

2 is the descriptOR, idiot

Also my argument is not negatable. Knowledge may have NO SOURCE, and I kno w the junk religious answer to that but you can save it. Not having to have a source =\= not existing. You can think on that, with your dogmatic pseudo philosophy.

 

[G.T.]

He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website. I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.

I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups. It's not easy. It's like a cult, akin to Scientology. These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics. I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.

But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs. I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending. I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on. But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . . When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation. LOL!

I notice that the worlds of atheists get smaller and smaller with each new absurdity they assert to deny the obvious.

Actually, religion is on the retreat.

 

[dblack]

... Are you an irrationalist (an epistemological relativist) or a devotee of that idiot savant Ayn Rand, G.T.? I thought you leftists hated Ayn Rand. LOL!

I was actually thinking of Ayn Rand as I read your post. I recall a particularly insightful critic who observed that she was really more of a master rationalizer than a rationalist. Some people are "smart" enough to convince themselves of just about anything.