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

[Ellipsis]

"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.

The blind cannot see the tree. Not "EVERYONE" can even see.

 

[Taz]

"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.

The blind cannot see the tree. Not "EVERYONE" can even see.

But they can touch and smell the tree, verifying its existence. EVERYONE can verify a tree, then how come EVERYONE can't verify your god?

 

[Ellipsis]

But they can touch and smell the tree, verifying its existence. EVERYONE can verify a tree, then how come EVERYONE can't verify your god?

But you didn't say touch and smell, you said see. You're moving the goal posts now; missing the point I made in the analogy.

In Buddhism we learn that each person is a god, every bit as much a god as 'the' God. Jesus says esentialy the same thing. So, when you deny gods exist, you deny you exist.

 

[Taz]

But they can touch and smell the tree, verifying its existence. EVERYONE can verify a tree, then how come EVERYONE can't verify your god?

But you didn't say touch and smell, you said see. You're moving the goal posts now; missing the point I made in the analogy.

You're just deflecting. My point is EVERYONE can verify a tree, how come EVERYONE can verify your god? A tree obviously exists to EVERYONE, but your god can't claim the same thing, why not?

 

[Ellipsis]

You're just deflecting. My point is EVERYONE can verify a tree, how come EVERYONE can verify your god? A tree obviously exists to EVERYONE, but your god can't claim the same thing, why not?

You didn't say 'verify', you said 'see', as in "view subjectivly" not meashure objectivly". Please stop moving the goal posts.

 

[G.T.]

Who cares if he said see before?

He reclarified, refined, moved the goal posts, whatever. Answer his reformation or not.

 

[Taz]

You're just deflecting. My point is EVERYONE can verify a tree, how come EVERYONE can verify your god? A tree obviously exists to EVERYONE, but your god can't claim the same thing, why not?

You didn't say 'verify', you said 'see'. Please stop moving the goal posts.

See was a general term. Are you too embarrassed to answer why everyone doesn't think that your god obviously exists? Did I stump you?

 

[Ellipsis]

See was a general term. Are you too embarrassed to answer why everyone doesn't think that your god obviously exists? Did I stump you?

I answered this already within the peramiters of your initial inquary: some people are blind.

 

[G.T.]

See was a general term. Are you too embarrassed to answer why everyone doesn't think that your god obviously exists? Did I stump you?

I answered this already within the peramiters of your initial inquary: some people are blind.

Nice dodge. Answer it within the new parameters. Conversations evolve, that's how they're had.

If you're hear to preach and duck counterpoints, go for it but you're wasting your time.

 

[Ellipsis]

Answer it within the new parameters. Conversations evolve, that's how they're had.

I did: some people are blind.

 

[G.T.]

Answer it within the new parameters. Conversations evolve, that's how they're had.

I did: some people are blind.

"new parameters"

Blind people can feel a tree.

Trees can be observed by everyone who is alive and wishes and has the mobility to do so. They're empirically observable. That is the crux of the point. Dancing around it isn't cute, it's being a dick. Taz wasn't being a dick to you. You're being a dick and flippantly ducking the crux: trees are observable by all.

 

[Meriweather]

...how come EVERYONE can't verify your god?

They are usually looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

You know several theists have responded to the kind of statement you just made with derision because, of course, if God exists he wouldn't be something like a tree or water or a rock or a star. In other words, He wouldn't be a Being of a material substance, and that's right. He wouldn't be. We all realize He would be composed of an immaterial substance that is transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent. Recall?

But, really, that's okay. We all forget things sometimes about the things we're thinking about. No big deal. There's no reason to call you stupid or anything like that, which is why I've never said that question is stupid. That would be ill-mannered and hypocritical, because I know that I often forget things about the things we all have to think about.

On the contrary, that's still a very good question, truly! It gets at the very crux of the matter: the immediate issue is not whether or not God exists!

The immediate issue is what does exist for sure and what is objectively and universally true about the things that exist for sure and about the ideas that we have about their existence.


Unless everything is an illusion, including this notion we have about objective logic, the following things exist for sure and are true about the things that exist for sure:

The Five Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exists, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Let's add two more things to that list now.

6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Looky here. Now we have "The Seven Things".
____________________________________________

Note: For those who may still have any unnecessary, lingering doubts about #6, see Posts #2519, #2518 and #2479, in that order.

 

[Taz]

...how come EVERYONE can't verify your god?

They are usually looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing.

So where can I go to then be able to say: your god is obviously existant... like a tree is obviously in existence.

 

[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?

You know several theists have responded to the kind of statement you just made with derision because, of course, if God exists he wouldn't be something like a tree or water or a rock or a star. In other words, He wouldn't be a Being of a material substance, and that's right. He wouldn't be. We all realize He would be composed of an immaterial substance that is transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent. Recall?

But, really, that's okay. We all forget things sometimes about the things we're thinking about. No big deal. There's no reason to call you stupid or anything like that, which is why I've never said that question is stupid. That would be ill-mannered and hypocritical, because I know that I often forget things about the things we all have to think about.

On the contrary, that's still a very good question, truly! It gets at the very crux of the matter: the immediate issue is not whether or not God exists!

The immediate issue is what does exist for sure and what is objectively and universally true about the things that exist for sure and about the ideas that we have about their existence.


Unless everything is an illusion, including this notion we have about objective logic, the following things exist for sure and are true about the things that exist for sure:

The Five Things
1. We exists!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all the other things that exist exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exists, He would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, logically!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Let's add three more things to that list now.

6. The Five Things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!!
7. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not!
8. All seven of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Looky here. Now we have "The Eight Things".

"We all realize He would be composed of an immaterial substance that is transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent." No we don't ALL realize this. As it's not necessarily the case.
But we all do realize that a tree exists and is made of wood.

 

[Meriweather]

...how come EVERYONE can't verify your god?

They are usually looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing.

So where can I go to then be able to say: your god is obviously existant... like a tree is obviously in existence.

Where have you been seeking?

We are told that the Kingdom of God is within; that it is in our midst; to seek God in the small things, to look for Him in hindsight. We are advised to be persistent in seeking and knocking.

 

[Ellipsis]

....trees are observable by all.

As is God.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It is an axiom!

I've tried a number times, civilly, to help you see the obvious.

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

1. It is not possible to logically state/think that "God (CREATOR) doesn't exist" ON THE FACE OF IT. You do exist, right?

That's not controversial. There's no controversy. None.

2. What is controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.

You guys keep thinking # 2, when the only thing logicians are talking is #1.

And the ultimate cognition is a question: Why is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired?

 

[G.T.]

It is an axiom!

I've tried a number times, civilly, to help you see the obvious.

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

1. It is not possible to logically state/think that "God (CREATOR) doesn't exist" ON THE FACE OF IT. You do exist, right?

That's not controversial. There's no controversy. None.

2. What is controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.

You guys keep thinking # 2, when the only thing logicians are talking is #1.

And the ultimate cognition is a question: Why is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired?

No, what IS controversial is stating we were "Created," dim bulb.