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

[dblack]

.

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.

Any time you want to match science cred with me, just ask.

.

Sounds like another challenge, not a discussion.

Sounds like an arm fart.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No, it is not objectively true that absolute truth has a creator.

That is SUBjective - not OBjective....learn the ******* difference you're a grown assed adult. Your fairy tales are tired.

Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to leave the term God (the Creator) out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke

 

[dblack]

No, it is not objectively true that absolute truth has a creator.

That is SUBjective - not OBjective....learn the ******* difference you're a grown assed adult. Your fairy tales are tired.

Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to leave the term God (the Creator) out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke

It's he still at it?

 

[Justin Davis]

You got the first part right, and Christianity is not issue.

.
really, a generic God is your goal ?

.

Why do you get all hung up on what might be and not just objectively see what is generally true about the issues of origin, the concepts of the universal laws of thought as they are without bias? He's even given established mathematical expressions of it all. Man alive. Just open your eyes. These ideas are not subjective. They're objective and belong to us all.

it remains for you to decipher what the issue of your "argument" accomplishes, that is if you believe your conclusions have a relevancy for a practical application - religion.

as others have requested, take us to the next level ....

.

Nonsense. It's not my business to tell you which religion, if any, is the true religion of God. But I can tell you this, every one of the objectively obvious facts in our minds about God and about the issues of existence and origin are listed in the Bible and are listed as being in our minds just so.

Justin Davis: There's two persons talking on a topic about God's existence from the bible, from bible-believing backgrounds with similar theological interests, from the same book and the same religion out of hw many people on this thread?.

MD: What are you talking about? No one is pulling on your leg. I'm dead serious about the things I'm sharing. Everything I know comes from the Bible, but these things are also in our minds, put there by God.

MD: Beyond that, Justin shares my theological interests. So?

MD: dblack, Fox's doctrine on free will is not scripturally, theologically or historically orthodox in either Jewish or Christian hermeneutics at all! In fact, it defies the biblical ramifications of the doctrine of Christ as the universal Logos of creation and the omnipresent sustainer of the cosmological order.

jd: Nonsense. It's not my business to tell you which religion, if any, is the true religion of God ... every one of the objectively obvious facts in our minds about God and about the issues of existence and origin are listed in the Bible and are listed as being in our minds just so.


so, the conclusion of your TAG is not meant to lead to an alterior motive of religious doctrine ? -

and you insinuate others are liars - more like one who is, knows no difference and for some is the proof by their denial.


without substantiating a religion the TAG in itself becomes meanigless rehtoic - either move to the next step or -

SHUT UP

.

Whose holding a gun to your head? The things that you can see in head are also in the Bible.

 

[BreezeWood]

while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

no, that is not God ...

what you are saying is manifested from your scriptures you are unable to decipher any other way - " No one comes to the Father except through me "

.

 

[Justin Davis]

[

I am not discussing Henry and Lang in this context. I am discussing the improbability of authenticity based on what I have been reading for more than 2400 posts now. It requires a great deal of mental concentration and concentrated effort to change one's literary posting style. I am happy you have a Justin to follow you around and give you great praise and confirmation for posting a great deal of irrelevant and often illogical and even more incomprehensible wall of high sounding theological text apparently in an effort to impress. But the literary style morphed far too quickly into one thought, one concept, one conclusion within that same wall of text to be believable any longer.'

Again a good practical joke. Halloween, the time of year for practical jokes, is coming up soon. That part was well done. I'm just not buying it any more.

It looks like you've never heard of what we're talking about. It's nothing new. It's just new to you. You're the first Christian I've run into who didn't understand the principle of identity or at least the Bible idea of the Logos, which is the same thing. That's the idea of it I came with. Rawlings showed me more about it. All it means is that God puts ideas about Him and about the creation in every person's mind. We all have these ideas and how do say it doesn't make any sense when all of us know the five things Rawlings listed and what the laws of human logic are? You're saying you don't see these things? We're wrong. That's weird because at three or four of atheists admitted that they see these things. How come you don't?

Or is it the things about infinity you don't like or can't understand when we apply the laws of logic to that idea because that shows that your idea of time doesn't work, which is something I already knew. Your idea about time doesn't work in the Bible, science, math or logic. Yeah, that's what you don't like. This is the same junk you were doing before. You never say what's wrong. You never tell us. What I want to know is why a Christian is saying these things aren't true when they obviously are true. That's why as I learned more about this and how the ideas work that I'm able to see the same things Rawlings sees. They are objectively true. They are obvious. You're the one who's delusional. And I'm not dumb. I can learn to write better. Who do you think you are? It's not that hard. If your going to say that people are wrong about something then say exactly what they're wrong about. Let's see. I'll tell you what I smell, I smell QW again who lied to me about important things that couldn't possibly be true about logic. You seem to think it's okay for people to treat me like I dumb, like I can't learn things.

I’m not putting up with rude people, and that includes you. You’re hypocrite to point your finger at me. People are seeing things they don't want to see, and that makes them mad because it changes things they thought were true. I understand the psychology. I'm not stupid. Tells us what's not logical according to you, and I'll tell you that you don't understand the idea of infinity in logic and math. See. You're not so smart as you think. My logic isn’t subject to your stupid assumptions. My mind isn’t close.

 

[Justin Davis]

while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

View attachment 33226

no, that is not God ...

what you are saying is manifested from your scriptures you are unable to decipher any other way - " No one comes to the Father except through me "

.

Looks like you can’t say the Creator doesn’t exist after all because that doesn't logically work.

 

[Justin Davis]

Also, are you saying that only real Christians believe things about the transcendent realm of being that, not only do not line up with scripture, but do not line up with the corresponding expressions of empirical phenomena? If the Bible is true, the expressions of the two respective realms of being should line up, albeit, with the created realm being a contingent foreshadowing of the transcendent. In short, what she doesn't comprehend in all of this, and neither do you, apparently, is that if she's right, the created realm is greater in terms of structural and expressional complexity than the realm of God.

Whaaaaaaaaaaa?

God reveals Himself in what He has impressed upon our minds, through scripture and through the cosmological order. He is infinitely greater and more complex than His creation!

Sorry. I can't read that stuff anymore. I'm saying that despite the fact that I perceive you to be a pompous, deluded jackass, I don't see those traits as commonly "Christian". Most of the Christians I know are decent people and many of them are highly intelligent and thoughtful.

Did someone tell you something you don't like either?

My m.d. Rawlings impression.... Hollie tell me if I'm close:

"The rational origins of ontological expressions found in the imperatives of first cognition are the classical and organic laws of irrefutable and absolute perfection within the metaphysical and scientific realms of necessity and something something infinity because axioms! Nitwits refute themselves bY even questioning such eloquence!"

Not bad! Copy and paste that ten or fifteen times, mix it up a bit, and I think you've pretty much nailed it.

It's pretty easy. We got five things. Looks like some finally figured out why you can't logically say God doesn't exist, and the point of that. Got hardwired? And what about those laws of thought? Looks like there's three of them. Oh, one of them shows us that infinity is a meaningful concept logically and mathematically. Gee wiz. I wonder what that could means. But I got to careful or else I might morph thought it looks like commonsense. No. Maybe I'm morphing, No. I think it's just commonsense.

 

[dblack]

It's pretty easy. We got five things. Looks like some finally figured out why you can't logically say God doesn't exist, and the point of that. Got hardwired? And what about those laws of thought? Looks like there's three of them. Oh, one of them shows us that infinity is a meaningful concept logically and mathematically. Gee wiz. I wonder what that could means. But I got to careful or else I might morph thought it looks like commonsense. No. Maybe I'm morphing, No. I think it's just commonsense.

Maybe you're just insane?

 

[Justin Davis]

So you might as well stop trying.

I'm still trying to figure something out, am I morphing or is it commonsense. Five things, laws of logic, law of identity, can't logically say God doesn't exist, hardwired. I'm pretty sure it's commonsense, and some don't have it because it's illogical to them. Are they morphing into morons? Now I know I'm really stupid but check this out, something real Christians are doing with logic.

Deductive reason presupposes the laws of logic. But why do the laws of logic hold? For the Christian, there is a transcendent standard for reasoning. As the laws of logic are reduced to being materialistic entities, they cease to possess their law-like character. But the laws of logic are not comprised of matter; they apply universally and at all times. The laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature and are necessary for deductive reasoning. The invariability, sovereignty, transcendence, and immateriality of God are the foundation for the laws of logic. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

How do atheists refute the transcendental argument for the existence of God

I wonder if this logic gets us to things about infinity, let's think about it for once. I wonder why the TAG keeps putting the laws of logic and God together but I'm kind of dumb so I might be totally off and illogical. Just saying.

Law of thought - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The topic principle of identity is discussed in the following articles:
laws of thought

• TITLE: laws of thought (logic)
  traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. That is, (1) for all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p to be true, or symbolically, ∼( p · ∼ p), in which ∼ means “not” and · means...

 

[Justin Davis]

It's pretty easy. We got five things. Looks like some finally figured out why you can't logically say God doesn't exist, and the point of that. Got hardwired? And what about those laws of thought? Looks like there's three of them. Oh, one of them shows us that infinity is a meaningful concept logically and mathematically. Gee wiz. I wonder what that could means. But I got to careful or else I might morph thought it looks like commonsense. No. Maybe I'm morphing, No. I think it's just commonsense.

Maybe you're just insane?

I wouldn't be alone.

 

[Justin Davis]

Nobody said they didn't know what cognition meant.

Just the way you used it was awkward as ****.

"Fact of the cognition"


Herb a derp derp whaaaa?

"Logicians* do not accept 'tag' in any significant #.

Impossible.

I call bullshit, because even the simplest of the simple can see that tag is not a rational proof

Cognition is the correct term because it entails the various constituents of the acquisition and assimilation of knowledge: perception (sensory), apprehension, delineation/discernment, intuition, learning, comprehension. . . ..


cog·ni·tion
ˌkäɡˈniSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: cognition

1. the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

That definition looks right to me and cognition looks like the right word to me, but I morph. Or is it commonsense? I'm so confused. When commonsense becomes illogical, irrational or incomprehensible we might all be lost. What am I talking about? Maybe horse is the best word. Dog is a pretty good word, but I like cats because cats are good. Infinity and beyond. ARe there an infinite number of values between the real numbers 1 and 2? Looks like infinity is everywhere we look, but I morph. Can a Foxfyre be divided an infinite number of times? There goes that horse again, but I morph.

Let's look up the word commonsense.

: the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions

: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts

— com·mon·sense \ˈkä-mən-ˈsen(t)s\ adjective
— com·mon·sen·si·ble \-ˈsen(t)-sə-bəl\ adjective
— com·mon·sen·si·cal \-ˈsen(t)-si-kəl\ adjective
— com·mon·sen·si·cal·ly \-si-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

I really like that second definition a lot, but I morph.

Commonsense: five things, can't logically say God doesn't exist, hardwired, laws of logic, principle of identity, A:A=A=infinity, but I morph.

 

[Hollie]

No, it is not objectively true that absolute truth has a creator.

That is SUBjective - not OBjective....learn the ******* difference you're a grown assed adult. Your fairy tales are tired.

Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to leave the term God (the Creator) out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke

It's he still at it?

No, it is not objectively true that absolute truth has a creator.

That is SUBjective - not OBjective....learn the ******* difference you're a grown assed adult. Your fairy tales are tired.

Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to leave the term God (the Creator) out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke

Sorry, Bunky. But your insistence that the pointless TAG argument is worth serious consideration by thinking humans is pointless and time wasting.

That you continue with this charade is a laughable joke.

 

[Ellipsis]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

I don't know what all those arguments you listed even are but here's mine: The Day-Age interpritation of the creation event found in Genesis 1:1-2:1 is not information any bronze age civilisation could have unles it were given to them from a superior entity.

Please be ready to discard the King James Version and refrence the original Hebrew over any English rendering of Genesis if you would like to discus this.

 

[Taz]

If a god really did exist, would we really be arguing over its existence? Wouldn't its existence be obvious to everyone, like a tree or water is?

 

[Ellipsis]

If a god really did exist, would we really be arguing over its existence? Wouldn't its existence be obvious to everyone, like a tree or water is?

To most of us, it IS that obvious.

 

[Taz]

If a god really did exist, would we really be arguing over its existence? Wouldn't its existence be obvious to everyone, like a tree or water is?

To most of us, it IS that obvious.

"most". EVERYONE can look at a tree and agree: ya, that's a tree. Not just "most" of us. But that's because a tree really does exist, and it's actually obvious to EVERYONE.

 

[dblack]

If a god really did exist, would we really be arguing over its existence? Wouldn't its existence be obvious to everyone, like a tree or water is?

To most of us, it IS that obvious.

"most". EVERYONE can look at a tree and agree: ya, that's a tree. Not just "most" of us. But that's because a tree really does exist, and it's actually obvious to EVERYONE.

Axioms aren't just things that are obvious, or things most people agree on. They're chosen as the starting place for an argument. Anything can be chosen as an axiom. But if people don't buy into your axioms, they're not going to accept your argument.