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

[G.T.]

They rearrange the wording of one of those five things, dishonestly, and also extrapolate from them something not logical to extrapolate.

They also think it supports the TAG argument, which it does not.

1. I exist.

Supports the tag argument? No.

2. The Universe exists.

Supports the tag argument? Supports ANY & EVERY CREATION THEORY.

3. God is not disprovable.

Ok, not right now he is not, and right now he is also not provable. Supports the TAG? NO.

4. <INSERT ONE OF YOUR REARRANGED VERSIONS OF #4 HERE>

4 is where the real dishonesty has occurred. GT said that if an all knowing knower existed, than it's an axiom that they KNOW they're all knowing.

What they're attempting to dishonestly extrapolate from that, is the following:

-gt admits the all knowing knower EXISTS! (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that absolute knowledge needs a supreme mind as its source (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that if god exists, god is necessarily an all knower (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that if an all knower exists, it is necessarily the creator of everything (no, GT doesnt)


It's very clear who the liars are, and also those who don't understand what they THINK they're trying to say.

 

[G.T.]

I'll wait for TAGGers to absolutely disprove other possible explanations for existence.

I'm waiting for the TAGGers to make an honest admission that that TAGGing makes every possible explanation for existence (and for competing claim to gods) just as likely as theirs.

Did I say I'm waiting for an honest admission? Nah. I wouldn't expect honesty.

You won't get honesty from proven liars. MD Rawlings is a liar.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:

The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!

Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things. Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.

Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!

Word!

The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.

So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.

Science verifies or falsifies.

Logic proves or disproves.

Period.

 

[G.T.]

Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:

The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!

Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things. Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.

Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!

Word!

The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.

So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.

Science verifies or falsifies.

Logic proves or disproves.

Period.

This is such stupidity, it's even stupid FOR YOU.

If science is falsifying something, it is disproving it, which is in effect proving something.

You play word games to shift the burden away from your irrational world view.

God is not proven in the rational sense n'or the scientific sense, and science does prove things otherwise it could not falsify, dingbat, because falsifying means proving untrue, i.e. proving something.

derp derp

 

[Justin Davis]

a. If we are right about organized religions, and I firmly believe we are, then it doesn't really matter if there is a god or "creator". It's just something that created us. All the other fairytale shit is just bullshit imo. Sorry if the truth hurts.

b. And we are right about all the organized religions. The 3 Abraham religions are hogwash, Greek Gods, Pharaoh gods. OR, your one god is real and the rest are bullshit, right?

c. I think "they" use religions to manipulate, control & keep the masses down. It is a dumb concept so they use it to dumb down society.

“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.” – Anonymous

I just read the posts between Rawlings and dblack. Posts that get back to rational/civil thought and discourse. The Five Things logically hold. They prove that the question of whether or not God exists does matter. Religion has nothing to do with these things. What people do with religion has nothing to do with these things. Your imposition of your subjective biases about religion has nothing to do with these things. So you think this religion or that religion is hogwash. You think religion is hogwash. So? What am I supposed to do with that?

I agree with the idea that sealybobo thinks religion is hogwash because he told me he thinks religion is hogwash. Emily should be happy. We agree on something.

 

[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.

Yeah, that makes sense. So the pseudo-philosophical . . . duh . . . on the outskirts of peer-reviewed academia is the real stuff, but the real stuff of peer-reviewed academia is the duh.

I think you probably missed my point. Which, to be fair, wasn't very clear.

My son has tried to convince me that our beliefs, even beliefs that are highly articulated, are never fundamentally rational at their core - and I'm beginning to think he's right. He says that they are adopted to satisfy deeply embedded emotional needs and we use reason to justify them or, far more rarely (almost never for most of us), challenge them. The thing is, it's the emotional strength of our beliefs that drives us to justify them rationally. And the more powerful the belief, the greater work we're willing to do to justify it.

That's a dynamic of human psychology, a dynamic that we're all aware of. At least I am, you are and your son is. I have no dispute with that. But in my opinion, it's a fault that humans are prone to fall into, but don't have to fall into.

It does not follow that objectively applied logic in and of itself is synonymous with subjective emotionalism/rationalization. By definition, by the juxtuification of these two things, we see that these two things are not synonymous.

I didn't say they were synonymous. I said that we're driven to rationalize our beliefs by strong emotional commitments. And, more importantly, the beliefs we work the hardest to rationalize aren't necessarily the most sound. They are the ones that provide us with the most emotional satisfaction.

If that cognitive distinction, the one I just made, is a deeply embedded conviction, though it may not be true outside our minds, so what? That conviction, in and of itself, is not based on emotion, but on logical pragmatism, and the fact this cognitive distinction is derived via objectively applied logic is proven to be derived just so, as it also concedes that this cognitive distinction might not be true outside our minds. But then it also seems to be an absurdity to say that it's not true beyond our minds. Hence, I conclude that it must be true. That distinction is not based on emotionalism. It's not a rationalization of the emotional kind.

I think this is the part of the argument that most eludes me. It's more or less, if I recall correctly, the crux of Descartes proof of god - the notion that we'd never have the idea of a perfect supreme being unless it were true. But we have all kinds of ideas about reality that turn out to be false. What drives you to conclude gods represent a special case?

The Five Things, for example, are just the way it is when we look at the problems of existence and origin, and the fact of the matter is that everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can see that these things are objectively true.

This is the attitude that makes your efforts to persuade others such a dismal failure. It's really no different than saying "If you don't believe, you're going to hell!" It's a threat, and an insult to anyone with the temerity to question your convictions.

Whether they are ultimately true outside of our minds is not the issue! Thinking that they might not be true outside of our minds does not change the fact that they are true in our minds, does not change the fact that we can't make these things go away or tell us something else. We can't believe them into telling us something else! And the notion that they aren't true outside of our minds seems to be an absurdity. Hence, we have no good reason to assume they are not true outside of our minds. Pragmatism. That's just the way it is!

The "Five Things" still seems like a shell game to me. I can agree to them when they are qualified and worded in certain ways, but as soon as I do that, I see you rephrasing them in a way that is entirely unjustified in my view. It seems like a bait and switch, an effort to get someone pulled into a commitment to principles that don't understand, and don't actually adhere to, that will inevitably lead them to your desired conclusion. I still haven't seen how you use the principles to prove that gods exists (I guess that's the "organic logic" part). All I've seen is a lot of salesmanship and claims that don't add up.

There should be no dispute at all among us over these five things. None! Except some keep interjecting something that is not there! They're interjecting a notion that is based on a subjective rationalization (an emotional reaction) that I'm saying The Five Things are an argument that proves God existence.

Huh?

I never said any such thing. Mirage. Illusion. Phantom. Ghost.

But some have also suggested that the frank, objective recognition of the incontrovertibly true Five Things could not possibly lead to a proof for God's existence. Oh? Are you sure? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But to preemptively deny the possibility that it doesn't lead to some kind of proof is to interject a deeply embedded bias prematurely, emotionally. That's a rationalization that is not objective.

The biggest problem on this thread is the false notion that follows in my next post which I'm going isolate.

This biggest problem is here is that you're playing (annoying) games with us. If you've got a proof, state it. All you keep saying is that it's self-evident based on the "Five Things" (which have an uncanny knack for changing) and the rules of "organic logic" . If that's the case, step through your organic logic and show how the five things justify your proof, or whatever it is you're claiming.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think this is the part of the argument that most eludes me. It's more or less, if I recall correctly, the crux of Descartes proof of god - the notion that we'd never have the idea of a perfect supreme being unless it were true. But we have all kinds of ideas about reality that turn out to be false. What drives you to conclude gods represent a special case?

What argument? The Five Things DO NOT assert that God's existence is proven by them.

This is the attitude that makes your efforts to persuade others such a dismal failure. It's really no different than saying "If you don't believe, you're going to hell!" It's a threat, and an insult to anyone with the temerity to question your convictions.

The Five Things DO NOT assert that God's existence is proven by them.

1. We exist.
2. The universe exists.
3. The possibility that God exists as the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist cannot be logically rule out.
4. God as Creator would logically be the greatest thing that exists.
5. Science can't verify God's existence.

At this juncture, end of story.

6. "If you don't believe, you're going to hell!"

There's no sixth thing like that! There's no sixth thing at all. Where are you getting that sixth thing from?

The "Five Things" still seems like a shell game to me. I can agree to them when they are qualified and worded in certain ways, but as soon as I do that, I see you rephrasing them in a way that is entirely unjustified in my view. It seems like a bait and switch, an effort to get someone pulled into a commitment to principles that don't understand, and don't actually adhere to, that will inevitably lead them to your desired conclusion. I still haven't seen how you use the principles to prove that gods exists (I guess that's the "organic logic" part). All I've seen is a lot of salesmanship and claims that don't add up.

1. We exist.
2. The universe exists.
3. The possibility that God exists as the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist cannot be logically rule out.
4. God as Creator would logically be the greatest thing that exists.
5. Science can't verify God's existence.

These five things aren't true? Of course they're true. The answer is yes. You already agreed that they are true.

This biggest problem is here is that you're playing (annoying) games with us. If you've got a proof, state it. All you keep saying is that it's self-evident based on the "Five Things" (which have an uncanny knack for changing) and the rules of "organic logic" . If that's the case, step through your organic logic and show how the five things justify your proof, or whatever it is you're claiming.

The Five Things DO NOT assert that God's existence is proven by them.

6. These five things prove God exists.

What are you talking about? There is no such sixth thing as in the above. It's not there! There's only Five! FIVE. FIVE. FIVE. And "These five things prove that God exists" is not one of the five. The five things DO NOT prove God exists.

The five things are not even an argument. The Five Things are not a syllogism concluding anything. They're merely a list of five things that are obviously true logically. And nothing else.

You have already agreed that the five things are true and that they do not by themselves prove that God exists. I agree. What is your beef with that?

Period. End of thought.

Stop adding/assuming things that aren't there.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:

The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!

Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things. Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.

Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!

Word!

The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.

So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.

Science verifies or falsifies.

Logic proves or disproves.

Period.

This is such stupidity, it's even stupid FOR YOU.

If science is falsifying something, it is disproving it, which is in effect proving something.

You play word games to shift the burden away from your irrational world view.

God is not proven in the rational sense n'or the scientific sense, and science does prove things otherwise it could not falsify, dingbat, because falsifying means proving untrue, i.e. proving something.

derp derp

No one is saying that the scientific falsification of something is not sometimes the same thing as disproving something. Scientific falsification is not always the same thing as disproving something. In fact, not just sometimes, but lots of times in the past, scientific falsification was not the same thing as disproving something, YOU IGNORANAT, NOSE-PICKING, BUCKTOOTHED HAYSEED!

Hence, the formal, proper, accurate, precise, unmitigated, unambiguous terms used that are ALWAYS, NOT JUST SOMETIMES true about what science does are VERIFICATION OR FALSIFICAITON, NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE.

SHUT. UP.

 

[sealybobo]

a. If we are right about organized religions, and I firmly believe we are, then it doesn't really matter if there is a god or "creator". It's just something that created us. All the other fairytale shit is just bullshit imo. Sorry if the truth hurts.

b. And we are right about all the organized religions. The 3 Abraham religions are hogwash, Greek Gods, Pharaoh gods. OR, your one god is real and the rest are bullshit, right?

c. I think "they" use religions to manipulate, control & keep the masses down. It is a dumb concept so they use it to dumb down society.

“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.” – Anonymous

I just read the posts between Rawlings and dblack. Posts that get back to rational/civil thought and discourse. The Five Things logically hold. They prove that the question of whether or not God exists does matter. Religion has nothing to do with these things. What people do with religion has nothing to do with these things. Your imposition of your subjective biases about religion has nothing to do with these things. So you think this religion or that religion is hogwash. You think religion is hogwash. So? What am I supposed to do with that?

I agree with the idea that sealybobo thinks religion is hogwash because he told me he thinks religion is hogwash. Emily should be happy. We agree on something.

Why do we need god to be good? Why is god important? Do you think people are stupid and need to be scared into being civil? If they aren't good they'll go to hell?

Well I also see how Islam uses religion and tells people if they murder they'll not only go to heaven but they'll also get 20 or more virgins when they arrive.

That's not your religion? Doesn't matter. Its a religion.

 

[G.T.]

Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:

The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!

Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things. Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.

Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!

Word!

The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.

So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.

Science verifies or falsifies.

Logic proves or disproves.

Period.

This is such stupidity, it's even stupid FOR YOU.

If science is falsifying something, it is disproving it, which is in effect proving something.

You play word games to shift the burden away from your irrational world view.

God is not proven in the rational sense n'or the scientific sense, and science does prove things otherwise it could not falsify, dingbat, because falsifying means proving untrue, i.e. proving something.

derp derp

No one is saying that the scientific falsification of something is not sometimes the same thing as disproving something. Scientific falsification is not always the same thing as disproving something. In fact, not just sometimes, but lots of times in the past, scientific falsification was not the same thing as disproving something, YOU IGNORANAT, NOSE-PICKING, BUCKTOOTHED HAYSEED!

Hence, the formal, proper, accurate, precise, unmitigated, unambiguous terms used that are ALWAYS, NOT JUST SOMETIMES true about what science does are VERIFICATION OR FALSIFICAITON, NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE.

SHUT. UP.

You're psycho-babbling now. Cute.


but but but but sometimes

 

[sealybobo]

Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:

The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!

Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things. Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.

Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!

Word!

The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.

So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.

Science verifies or falsifies.

Logic proves or disproves.

Period.

This is such stupidity, it's even stupid FOR YOU.

If science is falsifying something, it is disproving it, which is in effect proving something.

You play word games to shift the burden away from your irrational world view.

God is not proven in the rational sense n'or the scientific sense, and science does prove things otherwise it could not falsify, dingbat, because falsifying means proving untrue, i.e. proving something.

derp derp

No one is saying that the scientific falsification of something is not sometimes the same thing as disproving something. Scientific falsification is not always the same thing as disproving something. In fact, not just sometimes, but lots of times in the past, scientific falsification was not the same thing as disproving something, YOU IGNORANAT, NOSE-PICKING, BUCKTOOTHED HAYSEED!

Hence, the formal, proper, accurate, precise, unmitigated, unambiguous terms used that are ALWAYS, NOT JUST SOMETIMES true about what science does are VERIFICATION OR FALSIFICAITON, NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE.

SHUT. UP.

You can say any crazy thing that comes to your mind. Do we have to "prove" you are wrong no matter how amazing your claims are?

I shit god. It's how I make a living. I don't have to work. If I want to make more money I just eat more.

Or, I'm an xman. Or I've seen an xman. They are real! Prove me wrong.,

 

[Justin Davis]

Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:

The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!

Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things. Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.

Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!

Word!

The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.

So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.

Science verifies or falsifies.

Logic proves or disproves.

Period.

This is such stupidity, it's even stupid FOR YOU.

If science is falsifying something, it is disproving it, which is in effect proving something.

You play word games to shift the burden away from your irrational world view.

God is not proven in the rational sense n'or the scientific sense, and science does prove things otherwise it could not falsify, dingbat, because falsifying means proving untrue, i.e. proving something.

derp derp

The proper terms in science that are always accurate are "verification and falsification." That's an uncontroversial fact! "Prove and disprove" do not always mean the same thing as "verification and falsification," and using those wrongs confuses science with what philosophy does about logical distinctions and definitions. That's all I was telling Hollie before. That's all Rawlings is telling you.

FACT! Who's the idiot putting an agreement checkmark on your stupid post. Who's the other idiot? Idiots everywhere.

 

[sealybobo]

Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:

The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!

Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things. Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.

Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!

Word!

The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.

So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.

Science verifies or falsifies.

Logic proves or disproves.

Period.

This is such stupidity, it's even stupid FOR YOU.

If science is falsifying something, it is disproving it, which is in effect proving something.

You play word games to shift the burden away from your irrational world view.

God is not proven in the rational sense n'or the scientific sense, and science does prove things otherwise it could not falsify, dingbat, because falsifying means proving untrue, i.e. proving something.

derp derp

No one is saying that the scientific falsification of something is not sometimes the same thing as disproving something. Scientific falsification is not always the same thing as disproving something. In fact, not just sometimes, but lots of times in the past, scientific falsification was not the same thing as disproving something, YOU IGNORANAT, NOSE-PICKING, BUCKTOOTHED HAYSEED!

Hence, the formal, proper, accurate, precise, unmitigated, unambiguous terms used that are ALWAYS, NOT JUST SOMETIMES true about what science does are VERIFICATION OR FALSIFICAITON, NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE.

SHUT. UP.

You're psycho-babbling now. Cute.


but but but but sometimes

I agreed with you on a post and at the exact same time you gave me one back. What are the chances that would happen at the exact same time? That must be a sign that god does exist and he agrees with us.

God just told me he doesn't know how Theists figured him out. He never came and talked to them. He didn't mean for us to happen. Sort of like when a maggot is born out of your shit is what he said. He doesn't care about them, didn't invent them on purpose and there is no heaven. At least as far as he knows. He says his people all wonder how the **** they got here too. They wonder if like us they came from something greaters anus. LOL. The god that created us has parents and they have parents. We are so small.

 

[dblack]

6. "If you don't believe, you're going to hell!"

There's no sixth thing like that! There's no sixth thing at all. Where are you getting that sixth thing from?

It was in response to the portion of your comment that I bolded:

The Five Things, for example, are just the way it is when we look at the problems of existence and origin, and the fact of the matter is that everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can see that these things are objectively true.

This is the attitude that makes your efforts to persuade others such a dismal failure. It's really no different than saying "If you don't believe, you're going to hell!" It's a threat, and an insult to anyone with the temerity to question your convictions.

You're implying that anyone who denies that your five points are objectively true doesn't have a sound and developmentally mature mind.

The "Five Things" still seems like a shell game to me. I can agree to them when they are qualified and worded in certain ways, but as soon as I do that, I see you rephrasing them in a way that is entirely unjustified in my view. It seems like a bait and switch, an effort to get someone pulled into a commitment to principles that don't understand, and don't actually adhere to, that will inevitably lead them to your desired conclusion. I still haven't seen how you use the principles to prove that gods exists (I guess that's the "organic logic" part). All I've seen is a lot of salesmanship and claims that don't add up.

1. We exist.
2. The universe exists.
3. The possibility that God exists as the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist cannot be logically rule out.
4. God as Creator would logically be the greatest thing that exists.
5. Science can't verify God's existence.

These five things aren't true? Of course they're true. The answer is yes. You already agreed that they are true.

Worded like that, sure (if you change them again, we'll see).

So what? Why do you such a boner for These Five Things?

This biggest problem is here is that you're playing (annoying) games with us. If you've got a proof, state it. All you keep saying is that it's self-evident based on the "Five Things" (which have an uncanny knack for changing) and the rules of "organic logic" . If that's the case, step through your organic logic and show how the five things justify your proof, or whatever it is you're claiming.

The Five Things DO NOT assert that God's existence is proven by them.

6. These five things prove God exists.

What are you talking about? There is no such sixth thing as in the above. It's not there! There's only Five! FIVE. FIVE. FIVE. And "These five things prove that God exists" is not one of the five. The five things DO NOT prove God exists.

What the **** are YOU talking about? I didn't say "number 6". I'm asking: do you have a ******* proof or not? Stop playing childish games and get to the ******* point.

 

[G.T.]

What the **** are YOU talking about? I didn't say "number 6". I'm asking: do you have a ******* proof or not? Stop playing childish games and get to the ******* point.

sealybobo dblack - m.d. is a presuppositional apologetic

These are a laughing stock in philosophy, yet THEY don't think so.

This is the "proof" that m.d. thinks he has:

The Tag argument, the "transcendental argument for god," goes:

1. if there is no god knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible.
3. therefore, god exists


This, of course, is as dull and unsophisticated as it gets as it begs the question and they'd first have to do something their special little brains can't: prove premise #1, in order to even USE it as a premise.

See m.d. using the term MPTA A LOT? THATS THE "MAJOR PREMISE OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT."Or, #1 above.

 

[G.T.]

Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:

The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!

Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things. Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.

Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!

Word!

The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.

So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.

Science verifies or falsifies.

Logic proves or disproves.

Period.

This is such stupidity, it's even stupid FOR YOU.

If science is falsifying something, it is disproving it, which is in effect proving something.

You play word games to shift the burden away from your irrational world view.

God is not proven in the rational sense n'or the scientific sense, and science does prove things otherwise it could not falsify, dingbat, because falsifying means proving untrue, i.e. proving something.

derp derp

No one is saying that the scientific falsification of something is not sometimes the same thing as disproving something. Scientific falsification is not always the same thing as disproving something. In fact, not just sometimes, but lots of times in the past, scientific falsification was not the same thing as disproving something, YOU IGNORANAT, NOSE-PICKING, BUCKTOOTHED HAYSEED!

Hence, the formal, proper, accurate, precise, unmitigated, unambiguous terms used that are ALWAYS, NOT JUST SOMETIMES true about what science does are VERIFICATION OR FALSIFICAITON, NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE.

SHUT. UP.

You're psycho-babbling now. Cute.


but but but but sometimes

I agreed with you on a post and at the exact same time you gave me one back. What are the chances that would happen at the exact same time? That must be a sign that god does exist and he agrees with us.

God just told me he doesn't know how Theists figured him out. He never came and talked to them. He didn't mean for us to happen. Sort of like when a maggot is born out of your shit is what he said. He doesn't care about them, didn't invent them on purpose and there is no heaven. At least as far as he knows. He says his people all wonder how the **** they got here too. They wonder if like us they came from something greaters anus. LOL. The god that created us has parents and they have parents. We are so small.

anus is something we all want around our necks when reading m.d. rawlings, if you pronounce it a certain way. <a-noose>

 

[dblack]

What the **** are YOU talking about? I didn't say "number 6". I'm asking: do you have a ******* proof or not? Stop playing childish games and get to the ******* point.

sealybobo dblack - m.d. is a presuppositional apologetic

These are a laughing stock in philosophy, yet THEY don't think so.

This is the "proof" that m.d. thinks he has:



The Tag argument, the "transcendental argument for god," goes:

1. if there is no god knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible.
3. therefore, god exists


This, of course, is as dull and unsophisticated as it gets as it begs the question and they'd first have to do something their special little brains can't: prove premise #1, in order to even USE it as a premise.

See m.d. using the term MPTA A LOT? THATS THE "MAJOR PREMISE OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT."Or, #1 above.

Yeah, yeah. I heard that one before. But MD seems to be talking about something else. I'm waiting for the punch line.

 

[G.T.]

The MPTAG is an undeniable, irrefutable axiom just like 2 + 2 = 4. But then you understood what I was saying anyway, didn't you?

dblack HERE IS YOUR PUNCHLINE.

 

[dblack]

The MPTAG is an undeniable, irrefutable axiom just like 2 + 2 = 4. But then you understood what I was saying anyway, didn't you?

dblack HERE IS YOUR PUNCHLINE.

Ok. I'd rather him speak for himself, but - what does that have to do with the five things business?

 

[G.T.]

The MPTAG is an undeniable, irrefutable axiom just like 2 + 2 = 4. But then you understood what I was saying anyway, didn't you?

dblack HERE IS YOUR PUNCHLINE.

Ok. I'd rather him speak for himself, but - what does that have to do with the five things business?

Yea, he'll have to speak for himself on that but he extrapolates from them, coupled with some other pseudo jargain that he feels passes for deep intellectual thought, that the MPTAG is AXIOMATIC. He's a bit ridiculous, but let him respond and you be the judge.