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

[Hollie]

post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"

What's 'TAG'?

G.T. gave the fuller version for why the TAG argument is a fraud.

Now be prepared for Rawling to duct tape his bibles into a double wide for some thumpin'. You're about to be assaulted with a mind-numbing attack of Witness'isms wherein the boy will use a caustic mix of bad analogies, false comparisons, twisted logic and self-refuting arguments to "prove" his gods, all of it imbibed in double speak that makes professor Irwin Corey look rational.

 

[emilynghiem]

post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"

What's 'TAG'?

Don's trust anything G.T. tells you. He never honestly or objectively states the simple truth about the TAG as he does not have the discipline to be unbiased about the simple truth of things, and he has no respect for the right of others to make up their own minds based on the unvarnished facts of the matter. See post #2513 and the posts in the notes, and you will have the unvarnished, objective facts of the matter to make up your mind for yourself.

Dear MD by Natural Laws if you want to address GT lack of objectivity
you must start with your own!

CF the Bible teachings to remove a beam from your own eye so you can better help a neighbor with a splinter

The "beams" in our eyes are our own BIASES.

If you "emotionally get over" the BIASES separating you from Hollie and GT
then they will "get over" your bias as you get over theirs.

The DEFAULT position is "God can neither be proven or disproven because God represents something infinite"
As you said, the SCIENCE cannot prove anything but you are pushing the LOGIC or symbolism to be consistent.

Where we disagree is these people do NOT agree to your terms and definitions of
your starting definition of God and your approach.

They are "rejecting" YOU and YOUR approach
for the same reasons you stated above:

Don's trust anything ____ tells you. He never honestly or objectively states the simple truth about the TAG as he does not have the discipline to be unbiased about the simple truth of things, and he has no respect for the right of others to make up their own minds based on the unvarnished facts of the matter.

Both sides are going to have to agree to FORGIVE the fact we have these biases for our side and against the people we distrust with their own agenda to prove.

If we FORGIVE first, then we can see better how to rework our terms to follow a proof we both agree will get us somewhere.

Right now, we aren't even passed the starting point of
A. when did I sign up for this professor I can't follow and don't trust and don't want to take this class or approach
B. I want to start in different class and don't want to listen to this guy who I can't relate to, this isn't helping me at all
C. If these people can't follow universal math, they have an attitude problem. It can't possibly be me and the
way I teach it, because the math speaks for itself. It's not about me, it's about the math.
it's so clear, it doesn't rely on me saying it anyway, so the problem can't be me, it's THEM!

FU that.
Take a different class, get the same math from someone else if you do not trust or cannot follow this one particular presenter. Or ask a grad student to translate and help you get what they guy is saying.

But don't insult the professor and don't insult the students for not getting what each other is saying
and thinking there must be something wrong with that person!

The same math can be taught and understood in different ways by different presenters.
There is no reason to judge, reject or punish people for not getting each other's ways.

Can we FORGIVE each other first, and be OKAY with the fact that YES we have biases.
So what. As long as we understand this is going on, we can still work through this together.

 

[Hollie]

post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"

What's 'TAG'?

Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.


TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.

It states it "proves" god.

It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.

It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.

TAG goes:

1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
2. there is knowledge
3. therefore, god exists

That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."

Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.

Dear GT and also Hollie (I can't find the messsage where you also complain about
this TAG business that basically "states the conclusion" and then "challenges or insults anyone who disagrees" but I get it!)

Thanks for explaining what is TAG and of course the objections to this approach.

May I compare the process to LIKE a "contrapositive proof"
but not exactly like that: It is NOT coming up with ONE contradiction that applies to all cases
but to show that different contradictions come up in each case that all follow the same basic pattern.
It is the same process for all people, but each person has a different version of it
so it cannot be proven globally unless people recognize and accept the pattern on faith.

What Christians tend to do is state the conclusion
Then work BACKWARDS to address and resolve each objection that comes up.

Then by process of elimination, agreement is reached when all possible
conflicts are explained another way, leaving it open to either yes or no (ie agreeing we can neither
prove nor disprove God), but AT LEAST eliminating
both the "absolute yes it is proven to exist" and the "absolute no it does not exist"
by removing the emotional issues and biases causing a onesided attachment.

I explained to MD that he is trying to present the proof straightforward per se
(I called it A, just a forward proof where you take it literally)
but that MOST people follow the process I called B
where they are using his statements to work through the objections
and it is not about the proof per se, but the people's response and REASONS
for objecting. So there is a larger process AROUND the proof that is going on.

That process is not the same for all people.

You can show the Patterns, but each person has to go through their
own process to get to the understanding at the end.

The most I could do to speed up the process and get people on the same page
to show the common Pattern is to "prove Spiritual Healing by medical science" so you can see
how the process is universal, and heals a lot of people on different levels,
in different ways unique to each case, but following the same stages and patterns.

I think that would reach more people than MD logistical proof
which still applies universally but more people will follow science and what it shows,
and not the math and language he uses that only a specific audience responds to.

Can you please help me explain this to MD?

That you may not be motivated to quit rejecting and questioning the motives
of Christians using his proof, but if science were to prove spiritual healing
that Christians use to heal people of demonic sickness and voices, cancer,
drug and sexual addition and abuse, and totally change to a different person,
and that this process can apply to all people even atheists and it still works by natural science,
that would do more to get over the issues with Christians and to see there is validity to what
is taught in Christianity.

Would that help get more people on the same page?
by using science to prove something in religion is a valid universal process?

Emily. I'm not complaining. I am however, addressing the truly pointless attempts by those who are here only to proselytize and to do so with truly pointless, manufactured slogans that are notable only by their carelessness and ineptitude.

Why the need for gods as the assumption for why the universe came into existence. And, if you're going to assume gods, why assume your gods and not the gods of others or even earlier gods now replaced by your versions? As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think that Bob Dutko explains it really well with scientific proof of God's existence.

Scientific Evidence of God - Top Ten Proofs

In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Within it is a Conservation of Energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that while energy can convert into matter (physical “stuff”), and matter into energy, however much total “stuff” there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total “stuff” there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.
The “closed system” is a scientific term that refers to a system or an “area” that has no outside influence, like the universe. Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an “open system”, (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a “closed system”.
Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.
Plain and simple, matter/energy can not come into existence. It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities. Option A: Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, (even though science has proven that impossible). Option B: Everything in the universe has always existed for all of eternity, (which, by the way is also scientifically impossible as explained in the Top Ten Proofs for God's Existence CD due to something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), or Option C: There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to disobey them. Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics

Dear Peach: this is great, thanks!
Where I would NOT make a leap

1. "the first two options are scientifically impossible by the laws of physics"
As MD pointed out, Science can never fully prove something is impossible.
so it remains possible that either
A. everything always existed
B. things have a central source or starting point

2. This relates back to the point I AGREE on with GODEL
GT and PercySunshine and others:
God can neither be proven nor disproven because God represents something infinite beyond the finite scope of man

3. Where I SUGGEST to leave it open either way, as long as people agree with this
A. either everything always existed
and people represent this by equating God = Creation itself, self-existent and eternal with no beginning and no end
or God = collective sum of all energy, events, knowledge, thoughts, law in the entire world or history of life
B. things have a central source or starting point
All these things POINT to a central source of life or truth/wisdom/nature/universal laws
and God = equates to that central source of all things
C. we don't know, it could be A or B or something else and all this could either change or be wrong
because we don't control anything in life but are given it to deal with

As long as we leave it OPEN to all these ways A B and C depending on each person,
we can STILL agree on
1. what ARE the laws and principles and concepts universal to all people regardless of A B C
2. how do we AGREE to implement and follow these for the greater good or benefit
without getting into conflicts over A B C
3. how can we address and resolve conflicts when they arise
(which may or may not be caused by A B or C, but as we learn
to resolve those, we will learn to resolve anything else tied to or reflecting the same process)

If people CANNOT get over the fact that there are some people with biases for and against ABC
we are stuck at square 0.

the first step is to even get over the fact we can't get over these things the same way, we all have biases.
I am going to lean toward B and include A and C while knowing people with B end up dominating.
I am okay with that, but think it is wrongful to judge and reject and insult people
who naturally think in terms of A and C, which are equally valid even though I don't lean that direction.

there is nothing wrong with A and C as long as you don't reject B.
but once people reject B then in turn A and C get rejected and we go in loops.

of course we have our biases and will FAVOR rejecting some of these,
but can we FORGIVE that anyway and work with those biases instead
of judging each other for them.

 

[G.T.]

Emily,

It is not a matter of differing beliefs to say that using *a subjective belief* in the place of an *absolute truth* is absurd. I could never forfeit that in an honest discussion because adhering to terms that I find are absurd is a waste of exploration time.

In tag's major premise, it is said to be an AXIOM (universally accepted) that "without god, there is no knowledge."

That cannot be an AXIOM, because in order for it to BE ONE, *all other possibilities for the "source of knowledge
" must first be ruled out, in the ABSOLUTE sense.

Since they are NOT ruled out, the tag premise: without god, there is no knowledge becomes a mere belief, not an axiom and certainly not grounds to PROVE anything that follows from it, because it would only be following from a "Belief" and not an absolute, objective truth.

do you follow what I'm saying?

The TAG argument is a scam. It's been soundly refuted thousands and thousands of times in Religious debates - forever, and EVEN BY THOSE WHOM ARE RELIGIOUS, a great number of even them see the inherent dishonesty of using such an argument. It is snake oil.

I can take kindly to any random faceless username on the internet. But when actual rational discussion cannot be had because we are conversing with charlatans, then they get what they give right back.

<3

 

[peach174]

post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"

What's 'TAG'?

Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.


TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.

It states it "proves" god.

It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.

It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.

TAG goes:

1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
2. there is knowledge
3. therefore, god exists

That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."

Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.

Dear GT and also Hollie (I can't find the messsage where you also complain about
this TAG business that basically "states the conclusion" and then "challenges or insults anyone who disagrees" but I get it!)

Thanks for explaining what is TAG and of course the objections to this approach.

May I compare the process to LIKE a "contrapositive proof"
but not exactly like that: It is NOT coming up with ONE contradiction that applies to all cases
but to show that different contradictions come up in each case that all follow the same basic pattern.
It is the same process for all people, but each person has a different version of it
so it cannot be proven globally unless people recognize and accept the pattern on faith.

What Christians tend to do is state the conclusion
Then work BACKWARDS to address and resolve each objection that comes up.

Then by process of elimination, agreement is reached when all possible
conflicts are explained another way, leaving it open to either yes or no (ie agreeing we can neither
prove nor disprove God), but AT LEAST eliminating
both the "absolute yes it is proven to exist" and the "absolute no it does not exist"
by removing the emotional issues and biases causing a onesided attachment.

I explained to MD that he is trying to present the proof straightforward per se
(I called it A, just a forward proof where you take it literally)
but that MOST people follow the process I called B
where they are using his statements to work through the objections
and it is not about the proof per se, but the people's response and REASONS
for objecting. So there is a larger process AROUND the proof that is going on.

That process is not the same for all people.

You can show the Patterns, but each person has to go through their
own process to get to the understanding at the end.

The most I could do to speed up the process and get people on the same page
to show the common Pattern is to "prove Spiritual Healing by medical science" so you can see
how the process is universal, and heals a lot of people on different levels,
in different ways unique to each case, but following the same stages and patterns.

I think that would reach more people than MD logistical proof
which still applies universally but more people will follow science and what it shows,
and not the math and language he uses that only a specific audience responds to.

Can you please help me explain this to MD?

That you may not be motivated to quit rejecting and questioning the motives
of Christians using his proof, but if science were to prove spiritual healing
that Christians use to heal people of demonic sickness and voices, cancer,
drug and sexual addition and abuse, and totally change to a different person,
and that this process can apply to all people even atheists and it still works by natural science,
that would do more to get over the issues with Christians and to see there is validity to what
is taught in Christianity.

Would that help get more people on the same page?
by using science to prove something in religion is a valid universal process?

Emily. I'm not complaining. I am however, addressing the truly pointless attempts by those who are here only to proselytize and to do so with truly pointless, manufactured slogans that are notable only by their carelessness and ineptitude.

Why the need for gods as the assumption for why the universe came into existence. And, if you're going to assume gods, why assume your gods and not the gods of others or even earlier gods now replaced by your versions? As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.

Exactly Hollie
Non believers in the past said it was impossible for a virgin birth but science has found a way to do that with artificial insemination.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Hollie thanks for your help. I think we can get through this,
even where we really don't change how we approach this.
Just change our perception of what and why the other person is saying or taking such approaches or exceptions
with each other.

1. First for Hollie and MD

TAG goes:

1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
2. there is knowledge
3. therefore, god exists

That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."

Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.

The way I would explain this, is that people are trying to "define" God to mean the sum of all truth or knowledge.
So the REAL issue is "do we agree" that God MEANS that?

If we don't even agree, it is assuming and jumping to some conclusion and starting at the end!

The "proof" basically skips past all the steps and objections
to why God does or does not mean "the sum of all things or universal knowledge/truth/law/wisdom"

It starts at the end, and then attempts to address all objections by process of elimination.
so it is LIKE a contrapositive proof, but unique to each person who will have different reasons for objecting.

Hollie and M.D. Rawlings: It is like the approach used by salespeople
who address "each objection that comes up" until they eliminate all the NO's and get to the YES's.

And it is REJECTED for the same reason people reject salespeople
1. not trusting that person or their motives which appear selfish and not about helping anyone
2. not wanting to bother with someone trying to sell them something
3. getting annoyed if this person pushes or insults them for not wanting to hear them sell their idea

M.D. Rawlings Imagine you are seen as a salesperson.
What person is going to get ANYWHERE with an audience by saying
'don't trust them to be honest'
A good salesperson will LISTEN to the problems the person is having
and help them SOLVE it, to show how this approach SOLVES the problems
they are having! So they LISTEN and INCLUDE that, or they focus on something
the person wants MORE than the problems causing them to say no.

What is the real desire and needs of this person and how does this SOLVE their problems
so they GET what THEY Want (not you getting what you want which looks like you
just want to push your wares on them).

What does your audience need and want? and how does this help them GET what THEY WANT.
NOT what YOU want.

Very basic.

If you are even TELLING your audience "I know better than you.
I don't trust you to be honest"

How are you going to LISTEN to what they are thinking and need and want
to show how this applies to them?

======================================================================

2. For Hollie

Emily. I'm not complaining. I am however, addressing the truly pointless attempts by those who are here only to proselytize and to do so with truly pointless, manufactured slogans that are notable only by their carelessness and ineptitude.

a. Why the need for gods as the assumption for why the universe came into existence.
b. And, if you're going to assume gods, why assume your gods and not the gods of others or even earlier gods now replaced by your versions?
c. As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations.

Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.

Dear Hollie:

a. this is not the only reason for using God, it is not just for why the universe came into existence
but people are trying to give credit and thanks on a higher level under which everyone else is equal.

It is like thanking the TEAM as a whole instead of thanking one person more than another.
so people use God as the default to mean just being thankful for good things in Life, for example.

Another example: using God to mean Unconditional Love.

When I love my family because I am closer to them, that is biased.
but Unconditional love, like caring for a sick neighbor even if you can't stand each other and have argued for years,
speaks to a Higher Level of Humanity. it is love for lovesake, genuinely caring that someone not suffer without help,
and it not about reward or kissing up for favors later!

Another example: Also for God to be the source of universal and natural laws.
if we understand the natural laws that apply to all humanity did NOT come from "America's founding fathers"
then we don't rely on US govt for these rights. We understand they come from God or Life or Nature
that is for ALL PEOPLE. Some people use God to mean the greater good for all humanity, perfect good will
that is GREATER than any of us, so they want to give thanks to this greater good or God.

And nontheistically: In Buddhism for example, the higher Wisdom is like the Kingdom of God, so the point is to LET GO of oneself, one's material attachment to conditioned desires,a
and to "seek higher TRUTH than just what one WANTS". So seeking "God or the Kingdom of God" is an exercise in LETTING GO - that is what it serves and represents, something higher than ourselves we do NOT control so we learn to work WITH it in spiritual harmony and peace.

b. the one God is supposed to be above and include all these other gods.
So it is like respecting the Collective sum of all of them

The purpose is trying to get to the UNIVERSAL level that includes ALL of humanity.
So they don't want to go with a local god or law that doesn't include everyone.

This is why I go with the Universal Salvation approach to Christianity that includes the secular
gentiles/nontheists (Buddhists, Atheists, naturalists Constitutionalists ethicists social psychology and science)
so it is on that Universal level.

I find it is a mistake contradiction to teach Christianity as "excluding" anyone from the spiritual process
because that does not make sense; how can laws be universal and apply to all people yet leave someone out?

c. thus I don't see a conflict with the God that is universal
and the natural laws and nature that are supposed to be created by this God!
God would not contradict itself by going against any science or laws of nature it created!

The contradictions are not coming from that, but the faulty ways it has been taught.
when laws and process are taught correctly, it is Consistent with natural science.

this is not a reason to reject God or religion,
but even more motivation to correct the misteachings causing weird conflicts that don't make sense.

The same way i am asking MD not to insult and reject the audience, and then wonder why they aren't listening,
I ask you also that if we are going to correct the misteachings and misunderstandings in Christianity,
we need to work WITH the audience and the language they use and not reject and insult them.

This is why I worked so hard to learn the Christian language for the
natural laws and spiritual process so we can communicate using the terms that make sense to them.

And asking the same of Christians, to use science and natural laws
to explain things to secular gentiles who understand life and laws in nontheistic terms.

The insults and upsets are going to have to "get out of the way"
if we are going to rise above the barriers and rejection of the past
and learn to listen and connect with each other.

I am happy to help interpret back and forth to smooth over the walls or bumps
we run into; and to resolve the huge red flags and alarms that go off in the process.

Thanks again for bearing with everyone here in the process.
This is a really great group, and we NEED the diversity of
approach, thought and biases, even with the flaws and faults that exist,
in order to deal with reality, as this is what the rest of the world has to learn
to handle as well. We may never change our views, but we can look differently
at why we have our differences, and the good side as well as the bad, and try
to use our different ways for good benefit and avoid the pitfalls and abuses.

Thank you!

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily,

It is not a matter of differing beliefs to say that using *a subjective belief* in the place of an *absolute truth* is absurd. I could never forfeit that in an honest discussion because adhering to terms that I find are absurd is a waste of exploration time.

In tag's major premise, it is said to be an AXIOM (universally accepted) that "without god, there is no knowledge."

That cannot be an AXIOM, because in order for it to BE ONE, *all other possibilities for the "source of knowledge
" must first be ruled out, in the ABSOLUTE sense.

Since they are NOT ruled out, the tag premise: without god, there is no knowledge becomes a mere belief, not an axiom and certainly not grounds to PROVE anything that follows from it, because it would only be following from a "Belief" and not an absolute, objective truth.

do you follow what I'm saying?

The TAG argument is a scam. It's been soundly refuted thousands and thousands of times in Religious debates - forever, and EVEN BY THOSE WHOM ARE RELIGIOUS, a great number of even them see the inherent dishonesty of using such an argument. It is snake oil.

I can take kindly to any random faceless username on the internet. But when actual rational discussion cannot be had because we are conversing with charlatans, then they get what they give right back.

<3

Dear GT: I understand they are already starting with the assumption.
Do you GET my point?

The reason they do this is to compel the objections to come out
and address those.

Do you understand the strategy, the process?

it is assuming the conclusion: God is real, Jesus is real

NOTE: you can substitute whatever you want for the Opening statement:
Jesus = Salvation or I start with Jesus = Justice and work through all the objections to why someone disagrees.
here in this TAG case people are either saying God = truth or knowledge or Faith = believing in something even
science or truth so it's the same faith, etc. True or false that is THEIR starting supposition, in order to
trigger people to reject or object!

Then the PROCESS is to work out why people object.

The process FAILS when people insult each other.

The process SUCCEEDS when people work out their different ways,
and what I was telling MD is the changes happen MUTUALLY in tandem with the people coming
from opposite ways.

So GT do you see what I mean by the Pattern to the Process?

When people address a fellow Christian or future believer and they work through their conflicts to reach agreement in Christ,
this works.

When people address others from different teams or approaches,
it can still work but not by insulting each other's ways.

GT: overall this process is a LESSON IN FORGIVENESS

A. either the person preaching learns to forgive and let go and try more open approaches
B. or the people receiving the preaching learn to forgive and work on better ways!
C. or both, which is what I find generally happens. by accepting the fact people have
these different ways, we eventually accept and quit judging each other for it.

GT as PercySunshine said about "people getting over it"
that's what we all end up having to do:
get over the fact some people are going to stick to their views.

So if this is as far as you can go, I understand.

Can you understand if MD cannot let go of his opinion either that rejectors are "scamming themselves"
he doesn't get there is a higher process also but just looks at his side and judges others who don't go that route.

can you let go of your negative opinion of this weird backwards approach,
understand it works among fellow Christians who somehow have followed it to get somewhere
(it didn't work for me, but many others did respond to it and eventually resolved their obections so it works for them!)

and then use that to ask MD to let go of his harsh judgment of people who don't get
or respect this approach that seems backwards, unnecessary and contradictory to all logic.

NOTE: we can also agree to substitute a different proof, you and Hollie seem open to something that could be proven using the Scientific Method and not this backwards way of assuming the conclusion. What about Spiritual Healing? I can either send you Hollie and Breezewood the books on this (2 books I give out to promote this idea that we can prove this by medical research studies) , and maybe we could get MD to agree to that approach as a "lemma" to lead up to what he is trying to prove as a result. let's first prove that "forgiveness" is the same key to spiritual healing as taught by Christianity and other methods as needed to resolve proofs as well, and then see what is needed after that.

The books I recommend are posted here: freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
the point is to overcome the mental gap dividing religion and science,
and once that barrier is down, then maybe we can work out the rest!

Can you look this over and "tell me what your thoughts or objections are"
Thank you GT

 

[G.T.]

Emily,

It is not a matter of differing beliefs to say that using *a subjective belief* in the place of an *absolute truth* is absurd. I could never forfeit that in an honest discussion because adhering to terms that I find are absurd is a waste of exploration time.

In tag's major premise, it is said to be an AXIOM (universally accepted) that "without god, there is no knowledge."

That cannot be an AXIOM, because in order for it to BE ONE, *all other possibilities for the "source of knowledge
" must first be ruled out, in the ABSOLUTE sense.

Since they are NOT ruled out, the tag premise: without god, there is no knowledge becomes a mere belief, not an axiom and certainly not grounds to PROVE anything that follows from it, because it would only be following from a "Belief" and not an absolute, objective truth.

do you follow what I'm saying?

The TAG argument is a scam. It's been soundly refuted thousands and thousands of times in Religious debates - forever, and EVEN BY THOSE WHOM ARE RELIGIOUS, a great number of even them see the inherent dishonesty of using such an argument. It is snake oil.

I can take kindly to any random faceless username on the internet. But when actual rational discussion cannot be had because we are conversing with charlatans, then they get what they give right back.

<3

Dear GT: I understand they are already starting with the assumption.
Do you GET my point?

The reason they do this is to compel the objections to come out
and address those.

Do you understand the strategy, the process?

it is assuming the conclusion: God is real, Jesus is real

NOTE: you can substitute whatever you want for the Opening statement:
Jesus = Salvation or I start with Jesus = Justice and work through all the objections to why someone disagrees.
here in this TAG case people are either saying God = truth or knowledge or Faith = believing in something even
science or truth so it's the same faith, etc. True or false that is THEIR starting supposition, in order to
trigger people to reject or object!

Then the PROCESS is to work out why people object.

The process FAILS when people insult each other.

The process SUCCEEDS when people work out their different ways,
and what I was telling MD is the changes happen MUTUALLY in tandem with the people coming
from opposite ways.

So GT do you see what I mean by the Pattern to the Process?

When people address a fellow Christian or future believer and they work through their conflicts to reach agreement in Christ,
this works.

When people address others from different teams or approaches,
it can still work but not by insulting each other's ways.

GT: overall this process is a LESSON IN FORGIVENESS

A. either the person preaching learns to forgive and let go and try more open approaches
B. or the people receiving the preaching learn to forgive and work on better ways!
C. or both, which is what I find generally happens. by accepting the fact people have
these different ways, we eventually accept and quit judging each other for it.

GT as PercySunshine said about "people getting over it"
that's what we all end up having to do:
get over the fact some people are going to stick to their views.

So if this is as far as you can go, I understand.

Can you understand if MD cannot let go of his opinion either that rejectors are "scamming themselves"
he doesn't get there is a higher process also but just looks at his side and judges others who don't go that route.

can you let go of your negative opinion of this weird backwards approach,
understand it works among fellow Christians who somehow have followed it to get somewhere
(it didn't work for me, but many others did respond to it and eventually resolved their obections so it works for them!)

and then use that to ask MD to let go of his harsh judgment of people who don't get
or respect this approach that seems backwards, unnecessary and contradictory to all logic.

You're skipping something pretty major.

It's not a weird or different approach, it is an invalid approach, logically.

That is the objection.

The objection with the INTENT doesn't come until later.

The objection with the argument itself is that it is irrational, in format. It cannot be used as a proof for anything in a rational sense.

That's not merely an opinion, that is how reason works.

If we cannot agree that TAG is an irrational argument in format, then what follows matters not. But for the sake of this thread and the way the TAG presuppers behave, what follows is that they are snakes in the grass i.e. charlatans attempting to hijack a discussion from honesty to illogical "proofs."

 

[emilynghiem]

post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"

What's 'TAG'?

Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.


TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.

It states it "proves" god.

It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.

It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.

TAG goes:

1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
2. there is knowledge
3. therefore, god exists

That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."

Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.

Dear GT and also Hollie (I can't find the messsage where you also complain about
this TAG business that basically "states the conclusion" and then "challenges or insults anyone who disagrees" but I get it!)

Thanks for explaining what is TAG and of course the objections to this approach.

May I compare the process to LIKE a "contrapositive proof"
but not exactly like that: It is NOT coming up with ONE contradiction that applies to all cases
but to show that different contradictions come up in each case that all follow the same basic pattern.
It is the same process for all people, but each person has a different version of it
so it cannot be proven globally unless people recognize and accept the pattern on faith.

What Christians tend to do is state the conclusion
Then work BACKWARDS to address and resolve each objection that comes up.

Then by process of elimination, agreement is reached when all possible
conflicts are explained another way, leaving it open to either yes or no (ie agreeing we can neither
prove nor disprove God), but AT LEAST eliminating
both the "absolute yes it is proven to exist" and the "absolute no it does not exist"
by removing the emotional issues and biases causing a onesided attachment.

I explained to MD that he is trying to present the proof straightforward per se
(I called it A, just a forward proof where you take it literally)
but that MOST people follow the process I called B
where they are using his statements to work through the objections
and it is not about the proof per se, but the people's response and REASONS
for objecting. So there is a larger process AROUND the proof that is going on.

That process is not the same for all people.

You can show the Patterns, but each person has to go through their
own process to get to the understanding at the end.

The most I could do to speed up the process and get people on the same page
to show the common Pattern is to "prove Spiritual Healing by medical science" so you can see
how the process is universal, and heals a lot of people on different levels,
in different ways unique to each case, but following the same stages and patterns.

I think that would reach more people than MD logistical proof
which still applies universally but more people will follow science and what it shows,
and not the math and language he uses that only a specific audience responds to.

Can you please help me explain this to MD?

That you may not be motivated to quit rejecting and questioning the motives
of Christians using his proof, but if science were to prove spiritual healing
that Christians use to heal people of demonic sickness and voices, cancer,
drug and sexual addition and abuse, and totally change to a different person,
and that this process can apply to all people even atheists and it still works by natural science,
that would do more to get over the issues with Christians and to see there is validity to what
is taught in Christianity.

Would that help get more people on the same page?
by using science to prove something in religion is a valid universal process?

Emily. I'm not complaining. I am however, addressing the truly pointless attempts by those who are here only to proselytize and to do so with truly pointless, manufactured slogans that are notable only by their carelessness and ineptitude.

Why the need for gods as the assumption for why the universe came into existence. And, if you're going to assume gods, why assume your gods and not the gods of others or even earlier gods now replaced by your versions? As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.

Exactly Hollie
Non believers in the past said it was impossible for a virgin birth but science has found a way to do that with artificial insemination.

Dear peach174 and Hollie:
How I interpret the immaculate conception
is that it represents being born without carrying past "karma" from previous generations.
The rest of us carry issues from our mothers and fathers, generational or national karma,
conditions from our environments etc.

The point of Jesus or Justice being pure is that it is Justice for ALL people
regardless of our situational biases. So it is Universal Justice that is not conditioned
as man's justice is conditioned.

That is what Jesus, his "coming and return" represents: a Higher Justice than man's worldly biased justice.
Perfect Justice that is truly inclusive universal and equal, which is beyond any of us
who are born and carry BIASES from conditions or karma from the past.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily,

It is not a matter of differing beliefs to say that using *a subjective belief* in the place of an *absolute truth* is absurd. I could never forfeit that in an honest discussion because adhering to terms that I find are absurd is a waste of exploration time.

In tag's major premise, it is said to be an AXIOM (universally accepted) that "without god, there is no knowledge."

That cannot be an AXIOM, because in order for it to BE ONE, *all other possibilities for the "source of knowledge
" must first be ruled out, in the ABSOLUTE sense.

Since they are NOT ruled out, the tag premise: without god, there is no knowledge becomes a mere belief, not an axiom and certainly not grounds to PROVE anything that follows from it, because it would only be following from a "Belief" and not an absolute, objective truth.

do you follow what I'm saying?

The TAG argument is a scam. It's been soundly refuted thousands and thousands of times in Religious debates - forever, and EVEN BY THOSE WHOM ARE RELIGIOUS, a great number of even them see the inherent dishonesty of using such an argument. It is snake oil.

I can take kindly to any random faceless username on the internet. But when actual rational discussion cannot be had because we are conversing with charlatans, then they get what they give right back.

<3

Dear GT: I understand they are already starting with the assumption.
Do you GET my point?

The reason they do this is to compel the objections to come out
and address those.

Do you understand the strategy, the process?

it is assuming the conclusion: God is real, Jesus is real

NOTE: you can substitute whatever you want for the Opening statement:
Jesus = Salvation or I start with Jesus = Justice and work through all the objections to why someone disagrees.
here in this TAG case people are either saying God = truth or knowledge or Faith = believing in something even
science or truth so it's the same faith, etc. True or false that is THEIR starting supposition, in order to
trigger people to reject or object!

Then the PROCESS is to work out why people object.

The process FAILS when people insult each other.

The process SUCCEEDS when people work out their different ways,
and what I was telling MD is the changes happen MUTUALLY in tandem with the people coming
from opposite ways.

So GT do you see what I mean by the Pattern to the Process?

When people address a fellow Christian or future believer and they work through their conflicts to reach agreement in Christ,
this works.

When people address others from different teams or approaches,
it can still work but not by insulting each other's ways.

GT: overall this process is a LESSON IN FORGIVENESS

A. either the person preaching learns to forgive and let go and try more open approaches
B. or the people receiving the preaching learn to forgive and work on better ways!
C. or both, which is what I find generally happens. by accepting the fact people have
these different ways, we eventually accept and quit judging each other for it.

GT as PercySunshine said about "people getting over it"
that's what we all end up having to do:
get over the fact some people are going to stick to their views.

So if this is as far as you can go, I understand.

Can you understand if MD cannot let go of his opinion either that rejectors are "scamming themselves"
he doesn't get there is a higher process also but just looks at his side and judges others who don't go that route.

can you let go of your negative opinion of this weird backwards approach,
understand it works among fellow Christians who somehow have followed it to get somewhere
(it didn't work for me, but many others did respond to it and eventually resolved their obections so it works for them!)

and then use that to ask MD to let go of his harsh judgment of people who don't get
or respect this approach that seems backwards, unnecessary and contradictory to all logic.

You're skipping something pretty major.

It's not a weird or different approach, it is an invalid approach, logically.

That is the objection.

The objection with the INTENT doesn't come until later.

The objection with the argument itself is that it is irrational, in format. It cannot be used as a proof for anything in a rational sense.

That's not merely an opinion, that is how reason works.

If we cannot agree that TAG is an irrational argument in format, then what follows matters not. But for the sake of this thread and the way the TAG presuppers behave, what follows is that they are snakes in the grass i.e. charlatans attempting to hijack a discussion from honesty to illogical "proofs."

Dear GT: then how can you explain why it works for the people who use it on each other?
That's why they keep using it! it makes sense to them.

So it is just for their group.

BTW do you understand what I am saying?

The PROCESS is still in play.

You and I are discussing the Objections that come up,
so that is part of the higher process.

That part still works. if MD misses the point, and doesn't learn that
defining the starting point differently may fail or succeed with different people,
then it can still fail.

But the process is still in effect. Do you get that there is a higher process going on?
That the point IS to address the problems with it and resolve those?

So there is no way for the process to fail, unless the people give up and quit before resolving issues.
As long as we resolve all the points that come up (or at least forgive and put in perspective)
the process succeeds in reaching helpful conclusions that increase our understanding of what's going on.

So it still helps us move forward.

GT what do you suggest as the starting point in a proof you would respect?
What do you think of the Spiritual Healing idea?

Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.

What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
and the scientific method?

 

[percysunshine]

.

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 you are firing bullets with an empty chamber.

.

 

[G.T.]

Emily,

It is not a matter of differing beliefs to say that using *a subjective belief* in the place of an *absolute truth* is absurd. I could never forfeit that in an honest discussion because adhering to terms that I find are absurd is a waste of exploration time.

In tag's major premise, it is said to be an AXIOM (universally accepted) that "without god, there is no knowledge."

That cannot be an AXIOM, because in order for it to BE ONE, *all other possibilities for the "source of knowledge
" must first be ruled out, in the ABSOLUTE sense.

Since they are NOT ruled out, the tag premise: without god, there is no knowledge becomes a mere belief, not an axiom and certainly not grounds to PROVE anything that follows from it, because it would only be following from a "Belief" and not an absolute, objective truth.

do you follow what I'm saying?

The TAG argument is a scam. It's been soundly refuted thousands and thousands of times in Religious debates - forever, and EVEN BY THOSE WHOM ARE RELIGIOUS, a great number of even them see the inherent dishonesty of using such an argument. It is snake oil.

I can take kindly to any random faceless username on the internet. But when actual rational discussion cannot be had because we are conversing with charlatans, then they get what they give right back.

<3

Dear GT: I understand they are already starting with the assumption.
Do you GET my point?

The reason they do this is to compel the objections to come out
and address those.

Do you understand the strategy, the process?

it is assuming the conclusion: God is real, Jesus is real

NOTE: you can substitute whatever you want for the Opening statement:
Jesus = Salvation or I start with Jesus = Justice and work through all the objections to why someone disagrees.
here in this TAG case people are either saying God = truth or knowledge or Faith = believing in something even
science or truth so it's the same faith, etc. True or false that is THEIR starting supposition, in order to
trigger people to reject or object!

Then the PROCESS is to work out why people object.

The process FAILS when people insult each other.

The process SUCCEEDS when people work out their different ways,
and what I was telling MD is the changes happen MUTUALLY in tandem with the people coming
from opposite ways.

So GT do you see what I mean by the Pattern to the Process?

When people address a fellow Christian or future believer and they work through their conflicts to reach agreement in Christ,
this works.

When people address others from different teams or approaches,
it can still work but not by insulting each other's ways.

GT: overall this process is a LESSON IN FORGIVENESS

A. either the person preaching learns to forgive and let go and try more open approaches
B. or the people receiving the preaching learn to forgive and work on better ways!
C. or both, which is what I find generally happens. by accepting the fact people have
these different ways, we eventually accept and quit judging each other for it.

GT as PercySunshine said about "people getting over it"
that's what we all end up having to do:
get over the fact some people are going to stick to their views.

So if this is as far as you can go, I understand.

Can you understand if MD cannot let go of his opinion either that rejectors are "scamming themselves"
he doesn't get there is a higher process also but just looks at his side and judges others who don't go that route.

can you let go of your negative opinion of this weird backwards approach,
understand it works among fellow Christians who somehow have followed it to get somewhere
(it didn't work for me, but many others did respond to it and eventually resolved their obections so it works for them!)

and then use that to ask MD to let go of his harsh judgment of people who don't get
or respect this approach that seems backwards, unnecessary and contradictory to all logic.

You're skipping something pretty major.

It's not a weird or different approach, it is an invalid approach, logically.

That is the objection.

The objection with the INTENT doesn't come until later.

The objection with the argument itself is that it is irrational, in format. It cannot be used as a proof for anything in a rational sense.

That's not merely an opinion, that is how reason works.

If we cannot agree that TAG is an irrational argument in format, then what follows matters not. But for the sake of this thread and the way the TAG presuppers behave, what follows is that they are snakes in the grass i.e. charlatans attempting to hijack a discussion from honesty to illogical "proofs."

Dear GT: then how can you explain why it works for the people who use it on each other?
That's why they keep using it! it makes sense to them.

So it is just for their group.

BTW do you understand what I am saying?

The PROCESS is still in play.

You and I are discussing the Objections that come up,
so that is part of the higher process.

That part still works. if MD misses the point, and doesn't learn that
defining the starting point differently may fail or succeed with different people,
then it can still fail.

But the process is still in effect. Do you get that there is a higher process going on?
That the point IS to address the problems with it and resolve those?

So there is no way for the process to fail, unless the people give up and quit before resolving issues.
As long as we resolve all the points that come up (or at least forgive and put in perspective)
the process succeeds in reaching helpful conclusions that increase our understanding of what's going on.

So it still helps us move forward.

GT what do you suggest as the starting point in a proof you would respect?
What do you think of the Spiritual Healing idea?

Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.

What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
and the scientific method?

The problem is, is that it shouldn't work for anyone who is reasonable.

A starting point for *any* proof is premises that they themselves are already proven.

"without god there is no knowledge" is not proven, so it cannot be used as a premise for a "proof of god."

It's rather child's play, and/or cognitive dissonance, and/or snake oil. Based on md's demeanor, with him it is snake oil.





You cannot postulate a "proof" of the existence of something USING THAT SOMETHING within its proof. It's called "begging the question," it is irrational.

There is no getting around that whatsoever, TAG is an irrational way to attempt to "prove" god, because it is circular reasoning.

Not opinion.



edited to add:

starting from something you WISH to prove is NOT THE SAME as calling something PROVEN.

 

[G.T.]

Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.

What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
and the scientific method?

I think you don't understand something about TAG.

TAG boasts of BEING proof.

Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.

TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.

 

[Hollie]

post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"

What's 'TAG'?

Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.


TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.

It states it "proves" god.

It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.

It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.

TAG goes:

1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
2. there is knowledge
3. therefore, god exists

That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."

Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.

Dear GT and also Hollie (I can't find the messsage where you also complain about
this TAG business that basically "states the conclusion" and then "challenges or insults anyone who disagrees" but I get it!)

Thanks for explaining what is TAG and of course the objections to this approach.

May I compare the process to LIKE a "contrapositive proof"
but not exactly like that: It is NOT coming up with ONE contradiction that applies to all cases
but to show that different contradictions come up in each case that all follow the same basic pattern.
It is the same process for all people, but each person has a different version of it
so it cannot be proven globally unless people recognize and accept the pattern on faith.

What Christians tend to do is state the conclusion
Then work BACKWARDS to address and resolve each objection that comes up.

Then by process of elimination, agreement is reached when all possible
conflicts are explained another way, leaving it open to either yes or no (ie agreeing we can neither
prove nor disprove God), but AT LEAST eliminating
both the "absolute yes it is proven to exist" and the "absolute no it does not exist"
by removing the emotional issues and biases causing a onesided attachment.

I explained to MD that he is trying to present the proof straightforward per se
(I called it A, just a forward proof where you take it literally)
but that MOST people follow the process I called B
where they are using his statements to work through the objections
and it is not about the proof per se, but the people's response and REASONS
for objecting. So there is a larger process AROUND the proof that is going on.

That process is not the same for all people.

You can show the Patterns, but each person has to go through their
own process to get to the understanding at the end.

The most I could do to speed up the process and get people on the same page
to show the common Pattern is to "prove Spiritual Healing by medical science" so you can see
how the process is universal, and heals a lot of people on different levels,
in different ways unique to each case, but following the same stages and patterns.

I think that would reach more people than MD logistical proof
which still applies universally but more people will follow science and what it shows,
and not the math and language he uses that only a specific audience responds to.

Can you please help me explain this to MD?

That you may not be motivated to quit rejecting and questioning the motives
of Christians using his proof, but if science were to prove spiritual healing
that Christians use to heal people of demonic sickness and voices, cancer,
drug and sexual addition and abuse, and totally change to a different person,
and that this process can apply to all people even atheists and it still works by natural science,
that would do more to get over the issues with Christians and to see there is validity to what
is taught in Christianity.

Would that help get more people on the same page?
by using science to prove something in religion is a valid universal process?

Emily. I'm not complaining. I am however, addressing the truly pointless attempts by those who are here only to proselytize and to do so with truly pointless, manufactured slogans that are notable only by their carelessness and ineptitude.

Why the need for gods as the assumption for why the universe came into existence. And, if you're going to assume gods, why assume your gods and not the gods of others or even earlier gods now replaced by your versions? As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.

Exactly Hollie
Non believers in the past said it was impossible for a virgin birth but science has found a way to do that with artificial insemination.

Not exactly. Artificial insemination is a medical procedure, that is performed with informed consent of the woman in consultation with her specialist. There's no supernaturalism involved.

 

[emilynghiem]

Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.

What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
and the scientific method?

I think you don't understand something about TAG.

TAG boasts of BEING proof.

Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.

TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.

Yes, some people don't get it, and they state it that way.

GT if we are going to correct this, I find it easier to make that change amenable
by offering to SUBSTITUTE something else
instead of rejecting the whole thing, person and whole approach.

But for each person, they may agree to SUBSTITUTE or change it differently.

Since we are dealing with MD in this case,
what can you suggest we change the starting point to?

It has to be something you, MD Hollie and others here AGREE
will serve the purposes we see as helpful but WITHOUT introducing error or
assumption that doesn't work for whatever reason.

What do you suggest and let's ask MD.

Again, I planned to pursue the spiritual healing proof process anyway.

Since you and I agree that this TAG is rejected is is,
let's go to the next step, and start sharing ideas what to replace it with.

I will post some excerpts from previous study on Spiritual Healing.
the site they were on got moved, so I will look and see if I saved
copies someplace else of the excerpts posted. Otherwise I need time to type it again...

 

[emilynghiem]

What's 'TAG'?

Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.


TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.

It states it "proves" god.

It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.

It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.

TAG goes:

1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
2. there is knowledge
3. therefore, god exists

That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."

Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.

Dear GT and also Hollie (I can't find the messsage where you also complain about
this TAG business that basically "states the conclusion" and then "challenges or insults anyone who disagrees" but I get it!)

Thanks for explaining what is TAG and of course the objections to this approach.

May I compare the process to LIKE a "contrapositive proof"
but not exactly like that: It is NOT coming up with ONE contradiction that applies to all cases
but to show that different contradictions come up in each case that all follow the same basic pattern.
It is the same process for all people, but each person has a different version of it
so it cannot be proven globally unless people recognize and accept the pattern on faith.

What Christians tend to do is state the conclusion
Then work BACKWARDS to address and resolve each objection that comes up.

Then by process of elimination, agreement is reached when all possible
conflicts are explained another way, leaving it open to either yes or no (ie agreeing we can neither
prove nor disprove God), but AT LEAST eliminating
both the "absolute yes it is proven to exist" and the "absolute no it does not exist"
by removing the emotional issues and biases causing a onesided attachment.

I explained to MD that he is trying to present the proof straightforward per se
(I called it A, just a forward proof where you take it literally)
but that MOST people follow the process I called B
where they are using his statements to work through the objections
and it is not about the proof per se, but the people's response and REASONS
for objecting. So there is a larger process AROUND the proof that is going on.

That process is not the same for all people.

You can show the Patterns, but each person has to go through their
own process to get to the understanding at the end.

The most I could do to speed up the process and get people on the same page
to show the common Pattern is to "prove Spiritual Healing by medical science" so you can see
how the process is universal, and heals a lot of people on different levels,
in different ways unique to each case, but following the same stages and patterns.

I think that would reach more people than MD logistical proof
which still applies universally but more people will follow science and what it shows,
and not the math and language he uses that only a specific audience responds to.

Can you please help me explain this to MD?

That you may not be motivated to quit rejecting and questioning the motives
of Christians using his proof, but if science were to prove spiritual healing
that Christians use to heal people of demonic sickness and voices, cancer,
drug and sexual addition and abuse, and totally change to a different person,
and that this process can apply to all people even atheists and it still works by natural science,
that would do more to get over the issues with Christians and to see there is validity to what
is taught in Christianity.

Would that help get more people on the same page?
by using science to prove something in religion is a valid universal process?

Emily. I'm not complaining. I am however, addressing the truly pointless attempts by those who are here only to proselytize and to do so with truly pointless, manufactured slogans that are notable only by their carelessness and ineptitude.

Why the need for gods as the assumption for why the universe came into existence. And, if you're going to assume gods, why assume your gods and not the gods of others or even earlier gods now replaced by your versions? As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.

Exactly Hollie
Non believers in the past said it was impossible for a virgin birth but science has found a way to do that with artificial insemination.

Not exactly. Artificial insemination is a medical procedure, that is performed with informed consent of the woman in consultation with her specialist. There's no supernaturalism involved.

Dear Hollie: why this assertion that God has to mean something supernatural?

In Agnes Sanford's book and teachings on spiritual healing as NATURAL
she equates GOD with NATURE.

So the spiritual energy and process in healing between body mind and spirit
works NATURALLY as how these were "designed."

either the lifegiving energy flows freely
or some "diseased or imbalanced condition" is BLOCKING that flow.

So the point of spiritual healing is to identify all sources of blockage
in body mind and spirit
and to heal each level using the appropriate approaches for each

once the blockage is removed by the forgiveness therapy and healing prayer
(some of this focuses on past generations, if you want to call that
"supernaturally" connected to the past and affecting the present and future generations
who AREN'T ALWAYS genetically connected but it can transcend physical connection
and connect people "spiritually" from separate lineages and can't be explained by genetics)

Even if we cannot prove what is thought to be a spiritual connection on higher levels,
by applying the therapy and documenting the changes before and after someone receives healing,
it can still show a Pattern or Process in STAGES that are quantifiable and recognizable in Science.

What about studies comparing the "generational healing"
in Christian deliverance prayer and Buddhist regression therapy?

Wouldn't that bridge the gap between science and religion/spirituality
by showing people are getting healed of
phobias
addictions
anger/fear and emotional issues
demonic voices
abusive or dysfunctional relations
etc.
using these methods of healing "generational" sources of the patterns
and the common factor is "letting go and forgiving" the identified conflicts
in the past that are CORRELATED to the conditions or symptoms to be removed?

 

[G.T.]

Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.

What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
and the scientific method?

I think you don't understand something about TAG.

TAG boasts of BEING proof.

Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.

TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.

Yes, some people don't get it, and they state it that way.

GT if we are going to correct this, I find it easier to make that change amenable
by offering to SUBSTITUTE something else
instead of rejecting the whole thing, person and whole approach.

But for each person, they may agree to SUBSTITUTE or change it differently.

Since we are dealing with MD in this case,
what can you suggest we change the starting point to?

It has to be something you, MD Hollie and others here AGREE
will serve the purposes we see as helpful but WITHOUT introducing error or
assumption that doesn't work for whatever reason.

What do you suggest and let's ask MD.

Again, I planned to pursue the spiritual healing proof process anyway.

Since you and I agree that this TAG is rejected is is,
let's go to the next step, and start sharing ideas what to replace it with.

I will post some excerpts from previous study on Spiritual Healing.
the site they were on got moved, so I will look and see if I saved
copies someplace else of the excerpts posted. Otherwise I need time to type it again...

Well here's the thing, what you replace it with is the admission that there doesn't currently exist a logical PROOF for god, but instead only subjective arguments which some are good, and some are bad.

If objective proof for god existed, these conversations wouldn't exist and 100% of people would be religious - - - - - and as humans technologically and scientifically advance, we wouldn't see the down-trend of religion participation - as we actually do see.

I'm an agnostic. I'll look for reasoned approaches to finding god or finding that there is no god. What I will not accept is snake oil, or charlatans attempting to paint a pretty picture with poorly strung together lofty words hoping that lamens don't understand that what he's selling is actually very poor reasoning all the while having the hubris to say "hey, I've got PROOF!!?!!?!!?! GOD EXISTS!!" followed by the TAG argument which begs the question and is circular.....i.e. he wasted every reasonable person's time and only the gullible who are more susceptible to such dogma find it acceptable.

 

[emilynghiem]

Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.

What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
and the scientific method?

I think you don't understand something about TAG.

TAG boasts of BEING proof.

Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.

TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.

Yes, some people don't get it, and they state it that way.

GT if we are going to correct this, I find it easier to make that change amenable
by offering to SUBSTITUTE something else
instead of rejecting the whole thing, person and whole approach.

But for each person, they may agree to SUBSTITUTE or change it differently.

Since we are dealing with MD in this case,
what can you suggest we change the starting point to?

It has to be something you, MD Hollie and others here AGREE
will serve the purposes we see as helpful but WITHOUT introducing error or
assumption that doesn't work for whatever reason.

What do you suggest and let's ask MD.

Again, I planned to pursue the spiritual healing proof process anyway.

Since you and I agree that this TAG is rejected is is,
let's go to the next step, and start sharing ideas what to replace it with.

I will post some excerpts from previous study on Spiritual Healing.
the site they were on got moved, so I will look and see if I saved
copies someplace else of the excerpts posted. Otherwise I need time to type it again...

Well here's the thing, what you replace it with is the admission that there doesn't currently exist a logical PROOF for god, but instead only subjective arguments which some are good, and some are bad.

If objective proof for god existed, these conversations wouldn't exist and 100% of people would be religious - - - - - and as humans technologically and scientifically advance, we wouldn't see the down-trend of religion participation - as we actually do see.

I'm an agnostic. I'll look for reasoned approaches to finding god or finding that there is no god. What I will not accept is snake oil, or charlatans attempting to paint a pretty picture with poorly strung together lofty words hoping that lamens don't understand that what he's selling is actually very poor reasoning all the while having the hubris to say "hey, I've got PROOF!!?!!?!!?! GOD EXISTS!!" followed by the TAG argument which begs the question and is circular.....i.e. he wasted every reasonable person's time and only the gullible who are more susceptible to such dogma find it acceptable.

Dear GT

1. First of all no, it doesn't follow that once someone sees enough proof of God to believe it then they become religious.
a. my bf understands what is meant by God and believes it, but is not Christian, not religious and stays secular
b. the patient in Scott Peck's book who received spiritual healing to get rid of demonic schizophrenic voices
dropped her new age religion and went into science and medicine
c. my friend Daron who received spiritual healing still rejects Christianity as an atheist.
he simply does not relate to or like that, and has a negative "allergic" reaction to it, just
like if someone does not like Madonna, Miley or their kind of music and stays away from it.

You do not necessarily "magically convert" to anything.
It is just adding on understanding of what other people mean and experience,
to your own ways and understanding so you expand and include more people and views.

My friend Olivia does all that spiritual healing and God tells her things etc.
but that doesn't change my experience and how I process information and get insights.

I am not going to suddenly convert and start experiencing God the way someone else does.

So my bf and I both talk about and experience life in secular terms just like before.

2. yes I agree not to push any proof that others cannot follow for whatever reason.

I'd like to see what we could start with.

If you and Hollie would like to see proof that secular people like us can
understand spiritual healing and it proves that Christian teachings are real,
but it doesn't make us become religious, we can use the spiritual healing proof for that purpose, too.

To end the rejections and objections on all sides.

if we can demonstrate it works better to prove spiritual healing
and that helps more people anyway
then more Christians would use that proof and quit this circular stuff that isn't making any sense!

===========

NOTE: I may have to relook up the medical research study on rheumatoid arthritis,
but the spiritual healing team chose something that didn't have a cure only medication to placate symptoms. One man was completely cured where he no longer needed medication:

[excerpt from one of the exception healings from the rheumatoid arthritis study with Dr. Matthews] "Mike" a 65-year-old man had been diagnosed with RA when he was in his 20s. In the intervening decades, he had been through a great deal of pain, suffering, and medical treatment. Like many RA patients, Mike can describe a history of treatment with strong medications, from Prednisone to Cytoxan to methotreate; repeat surgeries and courses of physical therapy; and periods of remission, then relapse. Mike walked stiffly with a cane at the beginning of the session. He had severe pain in his hands, which had been operated on a number of times. A

fter receiving many hours of prayer and laying on of hands for healing, Mike reported dramatic results. "Look, no cane today!" he said. "I couldn't have walked without it yesterday or the day before. My feet are in good shape today. I'm able to walk a pretty good distance, and I couldn't have done this a night or two ago." [Mike also reported reduced pain and restored flexibility in his hands after prayer where he felt a warming sensation like energy vibrating down his hands] ... Relieved of the pain and disability his RA has caused, Mike is now living a full and active life. Ten months after the first healing-prayer sessions, Mike continues to report a remarkable improvement. He is, in fact, pain-free and able to go without medication of any kind for his arthritis. He says he feels better today than ever before in his life." (The Faith Factor, Dr. Matthews)

Although a few doctors in the past (such as Dr. Paul Tournier and Dr. William Standish Reed) have spoken and written about the value of prayer, I have a sense that we are truly on the verge of a new era where the false opposition between science and Christianity will finally be broken down. Already the dialogue has begun."

This is NOT "supernatural" healing
it is NOT simply some magic utterance asking to be healed and it happens.

The process involves IDENTIFYING any memories or past issues/conflicts the person has that is not fully forgiven, and making sure those are prayed over for full forgiveness so the mind and body are FREE to receive healing NATURALLY.

If steps are skipped, then the person may not be healed or not yet.

The same book "Healing" by Dr. Francis MacNutt explains a case where someone was not healed of their smoking addiction until they forgave their childhood issues with resenting the father as the reason they started smoking; that starting root reason had to be identified and let go and agree to forgive all things attached to it, in order for the healing process to follow naturally.

So there IS a science to it.

The books by Dr. Scott Peck were on identifying the issues and stages to heal two schizophrenic patients of demonic voices and personalities. And these personalities dragged Dr. Peck into the process, targeting his fears and weaknesses, where he had to forgive and let go also. so there was a larger healing process going on that involved the healing team, not just the patients, and Peck recognized tehre was something spiritual going on for these demonic voices/personalities to know his innermost weak spots that his patients had no knowledge of.

that process came from some higher level, so he called it spiritual but couldn't prove that part.
he could only observe and document the changes scientifically between the patients' psychiatric conditions and sickness before the deliverance treatment and how they went through stages of recovery afterwards and the changes/patterns they followed.

 

[peach174]

What's 'TAG'?

Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.


TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.

It states it "proves" god.

It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.

It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.

TAG goes:

1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
2. there is knowledge
3. therefore, god exists

That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."

Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.

Dear GT and also Hollie (I can't find the messsage where you also complain about
this TAG business that basically "states the conclusion" and then "challenges or insults anyone who disagrees" but I get it!)

Thanks for explaining what is TAG and of course the objections to this approach.

May I compare the process to LIKE a "contrapositive proof"
but not exactly like that: It is NOT coming up with ONE contradiction that applies to all cases
but to show that different contradictions come up in each case that all follow the same basic pattern.
It is the same process for all people, but each person has a different version of it
so it cannot be proven globally unless people recognize and accept the pattern on faith.

What Christians tend to do is state the conclusion
Then work BACKWARDS to address and resolve each objection that comes up.

Then by process of elimination, agreement is reached when all possible
conflicts are explained another way, leaving it open to either yes or no (ie agreeing we can neither
prove nor disprove God), but AT LEAST eliminating
both the "absolute yes it is proven to exist" and the "absolute no it does not exist"
by removing the emotional issues and biases causing a onesided attachment.

I explained to MD that he is trying to present the proof straightforward per se
(I called it A, just a forward proof where you take it literally)
but that MOST people follow the process I called B
where they are using his statements to work through the objections
and it is not about the proof per se, but the people's response and REASONS
for objecting. So there is a larger process AROUND the proof that is going on.

That process is not the same for all people.

You can show the Patterns, but each person has to go through their
own process to get to the understanding at the end.

The most I could do to speed up the process and get people on the same page
to show the common Pattern is to "prove Spiritual Healing by medical science" so you can see
how the process is universal, and heals a lot of people on different levels,
in different ways unique to each case, but following the same stages and patterns.

I think that would reach more people than MD logistical proof
which still applies universally but more people will follow science and what it shows,
and not the math and language he uses that only a specific audience responds to.

Can you please help me explain this to MD?

That you may not be motivated to quit rejecting and questioning the motives
of Christians using his proof, but if science were to prove spiritual healing
that Christians use to heal people of demonic sickness and voices, cancer,
drug and sexual addition and abuse, and totally change to a different person,
and that this process can apply to all people even atheists and it still works by natural science,
that would do more to get over the issues with Christians and to see there is validity to what
is taught in Christianity.

Would that help get more people on the same page?
by using science to prove something in religion is a valid universal process?

Emily. I'm not complaining. I am however, addressing the truly pointless attempts by those who are here only to proselytize and to do so with truly pointless, manufactured slogans that are notable only by their carelessness and ineptitude.

Why the need for gods as the assumption for why the universe came into existence. And, if you're going to assume gods, why assume your gods and not the gods of others or even earlier gods now replaced by your versions? As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.

Exactly Hollie
Non believers in the past said it was impossible for a virgin birth but science has found a way to do that with artificial insemination.

Not exactly. Artificial insemination is a medical procedure, that is performed with informed consent of the woman in consultation with her specialist. There's no supernaturalism involved.

That was not supernatural Hollie it was just as much a medical procedure with Mary who was informed about it. There is no proof one way or the other that was not done in a very advanced medical way.
God is not supernatural all of his works and doing are natural and scientific.