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

[Foxfyre]

It is all very simple. Here is the answer. Either a creator created matter time space and energy

OR

It all came into being without any cause.

Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.

Thank me.

Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else. It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god. And there are plenty of those.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Integrity is admitting you're a coward.

You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable.

Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.

You cannot.

You are incapable.

Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.

2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.

2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven.
This is not true. 2+2=4 because we assume all other possibilities are disproven. All possibilities can never be disproven absolutely because 1.) we do not necessarily know all possibilities and 2.) we do not necessarily know absoluteness.

I don't see where Rawling's argument has been defeated. I see where you have articulated a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you defeated his argument or that his argument is childish. That is also your opinion.

No, because it's true.

No, because it's true.
Apparently, you are not reading the posts but just knee-jerk responding in order to be antagonistic. Nobody in what you quoted asked a yes or no question.

What is "true?" Examine it carefully... isn't it what you personally believe to be truth? So are you an omniscient being? Incapable of being wrong? It's interesting that you think you can have those attributes but it's not possible for a supreme Creator to have those same attributes.

Bingo! I'm asking questions about it, not making any declarations as if from on high. It objectively and absolutely holds apart from my will that it do so. We have no choice in that regard, none of us. So what do we do with this axiom? We have to ask certain questions and make a decision, each of us, and no one has the right to intentionally mislead others about it.

Pardon my crudity, but it's appropriate in a necessarily blunt way to get at something by which every decent person should be outraged; though the analogy is far from perfect, he'll get the gist.

They're cock blocking!

In other words, they're lying, stealing, robbing. They're trying to dominate others, abuse them. This axiomatically objective fact of human cognition belongs to us all. It's true for us all. It's not mere opinion.

This is contemptuous behavior, and I'm sick of Pollyannaish moralizing regarding my posts in which I have taken the gloves off in response to this behavior. This is the behavior of persons who are telling us they have no real regard for the dignity, the humanity, the rights of others. It's not accidental that most atheists tend to be statists.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It is all very simple. Here is the answer. Either a creator created matter time space and energy

OR

It all came into being without any cause.

Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.

Thank me.

Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else. It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god. And there are plenty of those.

Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported. That sounds a lot like "proof."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Perhaps the reason you don't get me is, I am not disagreeing with Rawlings (or you). I'm not trying to weaken or refute his argument, it is very compelling and well-reasoned, in my opinion. In fact, I might even say it is a quite brilliant argument. However, it IS an argument.

My only point of contention is regarding the human ability to know truth, to know something absolutely, to be omniscient. At the risk of confusing you even more, objectivity is subjective. I know that sounds totally contradictory, but that doesn't make it untrue. We assign meanings to words. Objectively means we have evaluated the evidence without bias and considered all possibilities.... but since we are humans with biases and not omniscient, and can never know all possibility, this is impossible. When we say we are being "objective" it is a testament to our faith in the belief we have evaluated all the evidence and weighed all the possibilities. We think we have, we believe we have, we can't KNOW we have, it's not possible.

Excellent!

But I need to digress a bit. . . .

Just keep in mind that axioms . . . axiomatically eliminate all other possibilities intuitively. The process is a bit trickier in science, and that's why science doesn't prove or disprove things, but merely verifies or falsifies things . . . tentatively. That’s why it was so frustrating to here QW reversing everything, putting the cart before the horse.

That's why after he started talking to me like I was a retard I pulled out a bat because we weren't going to get anywhere with that garbage, and I simply couldn't tolerate the attempt to discredit me or my posts.

We'd never get anywhere his way. We'd still be in caves. It doesn't work that way, except, increasingly, in the less mathematically exacting sciences from which we're getting so much junk today.

It's the use of logic that tells us what's coherently reasonable and, therefore, possible. It's logic and the philosophically objective conventions of metaphysics and epistemology (not the kind of system-building philosophy he was talking about) that define things and the parameters of science; and the one axiom that is universally indispensable to all forms of logic is the principle of identity, which is the only thing that ever mattered.

Besides the suspension of the law of the excluded middle as an axiom is not synonymous to eliminating it. It still applies in all forms of logic as it cannot be any other way, albeit, as discretely demonstrated on a case by case basis. It does in fact become an axiom on that basis, i.e., for any give proposition it is demonstrated to adhere within the larger framework.

Don't respond to this post, okay? Just let that sink in and then look at the next one. You'll understand why when you read the next with that in mind.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.

2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.

You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot know something is true. You can believe it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.

A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.

2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.

But perceptions can be deceiving. In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number. Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4. But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds. This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.

Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.

How much more absurd is it to use math to define God? Pretty much an exercise in futility. However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance. And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".

If only you knew what you're are talking about, which you don't.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It is all very simple. Here is the answer. Either a creator created matter time space and energy

OR

It all came into being without any cause.

Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.

Thank me.

Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else. It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god. And there are plenty of those.

Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported. That sounds a lot like "proof."

While I did thank you for the post. Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term God as Creator, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling. Moreover, the descriptor Creator necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists. We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question. Hence, Creator!

These are proofs, logical proofs. Science doesn't prove things at all. Logic proves or disproves things. Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible. It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.

Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!

 

[Hollie]

Integrity is admitting you're a coward.

You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable.

Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.

You cannot.

You are incapable.

Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.

2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.

2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven.
This is not true. 2+2=4 because we assume all other possibilities are disproven. All possibilities can never be disproven absolutely because 1.) we do not necessarily know all possibilities and 2.) we do not necessarily know absoluteness.

I don't see where Rawling's argument has been defeated. I see where you have articulated a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you defeated his argument or that his argument is childish. That is also your opinion.

No, because it's true.

No, because it's true.
Apparently, you are not reading the posts but just knee-jerk responding in order to be antagonistic. Nobody in what you quoted asked a yes or no question.

What is "true?" Examine it carefully... isn't it what you personally believe to be truth? So are you an omniscient being? Incapable of being wrong? It's interesting that you think you can have those attributes but it's not possible for a supreme Creator to have those same attributes.

Bingo! I'm asking questions about it, not making any declarations as if from on high. It objectively and absolutely holds apart from my will that it do so. We have no choice in that regard, none of us. So what do we do with this axiom? We have to ask certain questions and make a decision, each of us, and no one has the right to intentionally mislead others about it.

Pardon my crudity, but it's appropriate in a necessarily blunt way to get at something by which every decent person should be outraged; though the analogy is far from perfect, he'll get the gist.

They're cock blocking!

In other words, they're lying, stealing, robbing. They're trying to dominate others, abuse them. This axiomatically objective fact of human cognition belongs to us all. It's true for us all. It's not mere opinion.

This is contemptuous behavior, and I'm sick of Pollyannaish moralizing regarding my posts in which I have taken the gloves off in response to this behavior. This is the behavior of persons who are telling us they have no real regard for the dignity, the humanity, the rights of others. It's not accidental that most atheists tend to be statists.

That was inordinately pompous, self-serving and a comedy of errors and incompetence, even by your usual standards.

 

[Hollie]

It is all very simple. Here is the answer. Either a creator created matter time space and energy

OR

It all came into being without any cause.

Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.

Thank me.

Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else. It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god. And there are plenty of those.

Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported. That sounds a lot like "proof."

While I did thank you for the post. Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term God as Creator, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling. Moreover, the descriptor Creator necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists. We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question. Hence, Creator!

These are proofs, logical proofs. Science doesn't prove things at all. Logic proves or disproves things. Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible. It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.

Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!

For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It is all very simple. Here is the answer. Either a creator created matter time space and energy

OR

It all came into being without any cause.

Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.

Thank me.

Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else. It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god. And there are plenty of those.

Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported. That sounds a lot like "proof."

While I did thank you for the post. Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term God as Creator, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling. Moreover, the descriptor Creator necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists. We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question. Hence, Creator!

These are proofs, logical proofs. Science doesn't prove things at all. Logic proves or disproves things. Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible. It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.

Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!

Thanks for the thanks and thanks for your contributions here. But you are wrong.

A sound and valid syllogism for the existence of God would require premises which are "true" and a FORM of argument which can be subject to logical tests. The latter would require us to accept that IF the premises were each true, THEN logic would dictate the conclusion.

Nobody has shown a FORM of argument on this topic that doesn't fall short. But worse yet, the most fundamental premises are not susceptible to being established as "true."

The correct answer to the op question remains "no."

Based on what we know, we cannot logically establish either the pro or the con. We are still forced to admitted that we don't know and we are not yet able to know.

Put it to the test. In syllogism form ( using every day language ) state the syllogism that is both valid in form and sound in truth value that supports the proposition that God "must" exist as the Creator.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

From #2684

My only point of contention is regarding the human ability to know truth, to know something absolutely, to be omniscient. At the risk of confusing you even more, objectivity is subjective. I know that sounds totally contradictory, but that doesn't make it untrue. We assign meanings to words. Objectively means we have evaluated the evidence without bias and considered all possibilities.... but since we are humans with biases and not omniscient, and can never know all possibility, this is impossible. When we say we are being "objective" it is a testament to our faith in the belief we have evaluated all the evidence and weighed all the possibilities. We think we have, we believe we have, we can't KNOW we have, it's not possible.

This is coherent!

This is the best thing you've written thus far, in my opinion, and at the risk of being called a pompous ass again, I'll take a smidgen of credit for it. In fact, I take cash or check. Just kidding. This is an excellent post, Boss! You and I have just done a "near Emily"!

You have moved a bit closer to the objective world of human cognition as opposed to what you were initially advocating way earlier on this thread. In fact, right now, you are but one simple step away from a mind-blowing epiphany.

I still disagree with the expression that "objectivity is subjective". In other words, I know what you're getting at, but allow me to propose something else: drop the violation of the second law of thought (the law of contradiction) and simply assert the only proper response to the foundation of wisdom: Faith!

That's the response I've been standing on all along via the incontrovertible laws of organic thought, which, ultimately, are, collectively, the universal Principle of Identity.

Stay with me, grab a seatbelt, buckle up for this ride.

As I've said before you are so close to what is true in terms of perfect logic, though you remain a bit off. I hear you, Boss. I always have. And you've been all around it, but not quite on it.

Don't take offense. It's got nothing’ to do with me. I'm nobody. The brilliance of the argument you alluded to is not mine. It took God years to get me on it. Years! For something right in front of me all along. That's how screwed up we are! But what's been really freakin' me out all along with you is that while I'm more learned than you on this stuff, I am not necessarily smarter than you. You're naturally onto to something profound that God had to hammer through my thick skull.

"No, no, Michael!"

"But, Lord . . ."

"You're still way off."

"But, Lord . . ."

"Hush and listen."

"Okay, Lord . . . Wait, wait, I see it. Whoa!"

"Pretty cool, eh?"

Boss, there's no reason for the violation of the second law of thought, all of which, ultimately, are moral in nature. Just let the laws of thought stand. Abide by them. Obey them. Make your thoughts and your expressions unanimously conform to them, as you can't escape the actuality of their revelations or sanctions, respectively, anyway. No one can or does.

(By the way, that's the foundational understanding about why and how absolute omniscience and actual free will coherently coexist. You're free to choose, but whatever choice you make, the outcome is known by God, because embracing the laws of thought is reward, disregarding them is disaster. The ultimate understanding of this dynamic, however, in terms of God's absolute knowledge about the unique details of each individual's choices, is revealed by simply embracing the objectively logical fact of number 4 of the Seven Things: the multidimensional simultaneity of infinity.)

Don't violate the laws of thought and what you're trying to get at becomes crystal clear.

Theorem: humans are finite beings of faith who hold that objectivity is possible by faith. If something is objectively possible, it must be true. For in this instance, it is necessarily and axiomatically true as a matter of practicality and must, therefore, be true as a matter of ultimacy.

Stay with me.

This is a logical proof for the fact that faith is the means, though not the ground, by which we embrace absolutely certain knowledge. Ultimately belief and knowledge are one.

What is that logical proof for faith ultimately based on? Answer: reason. Who is the ultimate essence of that reason?

Each person has to decide that for themselves, but for those of us who personally know Who the answer for that question is, this is the order of things:

God . . . logic . . . information . . . faith . . . true knowledge.​

Whaaaaa?

On the very face of it, it's not logically possible for either a finite mind or for a creature to think/state "God (Creator) doesn't exist." That thought or statement is logically self-negating. It's actually a thought/statement that God does exist!

Hence, "I AM!"

Now some are still conflating #2 with #1 (See http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/), but apparently you've got it down.

1. And because I AM you may know that the apparent, every-day-walk-in-the-park distinctions you must necessarily make as a matter of practicality are concretely real! 2. The distinction between objectivity and subjectivity is concretely real! 3. The apparent world beyond the world of your mind is concretely real! 4. The apparent synchronization of the rational forms (dimensional, geometric, spatial) and logical categories (the propositional delineations of linguistic and mathematical apprehensions/expressions) with the properties and processes of the cosmological order is concretely real!

I AM the Ground of existence and the unifying Principle.

Do you believe, children, what I AM telling you or not about all these things, via that incontrovertible axiom of human cognition by which you cannot logically deny that I AM, whether you think this axiom holds up beyond the confines of your mind or not?

I AM Wisdom. I AM the Logos. I AM that first principle of wisdom that I put into your heads. I AM the foundation of the logic I put into your heads. I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life. To believe Me is to know with absolutely certainty that those things that are apparently true to all—axiomatically, objectively, logically—is concretely real!

Moreover, I AM infinitely perfect in attribution, just as the objectively applied logic I put in your heads tells you when you apply it to the construct of infinity that immediately follows the recognition that I AM the foundation of the universal principle of identity, which is bioneurologically hardwired in you.

I AM infinitely powerful. I AM infinitely all-knowing. I AM infinitely present. Hence, I AM absolutely perfect. I cannot and do not ever lie; I cannot not and will not ever make a mistake.

Do you believe that the axiomatic declaration of the I AM in your mind is My "voice"? Do you believe? Do you trust what I'm telling you?

God (Reason) . . . logic . . . information .. . faith . . . true knowledge.

But whether you believe Me or not, regardless of who or what you put in the place of the I AM in your heads as the actual foundation for it all—nature, forces, principles or divinity—the objectively and universally axiomatic facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin remain what they are in terms of the apparent distinction between things like objectivity and subjectively.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It is all very simple. Here is the answer. Either a creator created matter time space and energy

OR

It all came into being without any cause.

Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.

Thank me.

Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else. It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god. And there are plenty of those.

Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported. That sounds a lot like "proof."

While I did thank you for the post. Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term God as Creator, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling. Moreover, the descriptor Creator necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists. We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question. Hence, Creator!

These are proofs, logical proofs. Science doesn't prove things at all. Logic proves or disproves things. Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible. It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.

Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!

For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Still cock blocking, I see. Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.

 

[G.T.]

Noone logical posits "god created everything" as an axiom knowing that its not disproven in the absolute sense that existence was not a creation.

Walls of text can't help that little tid bit of your retardation.

 

[Hollie]

It is all very simple. Here is the answer. Either a creator created matter time space and energy

OR

It all came into being without any cause.

Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.

Thank me.

Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else. It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god. And there are plenty of those.

Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported. That sounds a lot like "proof."

While I did thank you for the post. Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term God as Creator, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling. Moreover, the descriptor Creator necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists. We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question. Hence, Creator!

These are proofs, logical proofs. Science doesn't prove things at all. Logic proves or disproves things. Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible. It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.

Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!

For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Still cock blocking, I see. Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.

Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.

For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your “feelings” of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration

Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Thanks for the thanks and thanks for your contributions here. But you are wrong.

A sound and valid syllogism for the existence of God would require premises which are "true" and a FORM of argument which can be subject to logical tests. The latter would require us to accept that IF the premises were each true, THEN logic would dictate the conclusion.

Nobody has shown a FORM of argument on this topic that doesn't fall short. But worse yet, the most fundamental premises are not susceptible to being established as "true."

The correct answer to the op question remains "no."

Based on what we know, we cannot logically establish either the pro or the con. We are still forced to admitted that we don't know and we are not yet able to know.

Put it to the test. In syllogism form ( using every day language ) state the syllogism that is both valid in form and sound in truth value that supports the proposition that God "must" exist as the Creator.

We’ve already been through this. Your understanding of the conventions of formal logic is off. You're confounding the methodology of science with the metaphysics of logic.

First of all, you're not talking about the standards of justification for organic/classical logic or model logic at all. You’re talking about the standards of justification for constructive logic, essentially, the logic of science, which is contingent on organic/classical logic. It's not the other way around at all. Constructive logic must inevitably conform to the standards for justification of organic/classical logic.

Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values.

Nothing comes from nothing (reducio ad absurdum), which is the foundational axiom for the Cosmological Argument, is formally held to be justifiable in all forms of logic. Why? Because the contrary remains an apparent absurdity and there's no direct evidentiary data that could possibly overthrow the axiom. Hence, the premise is well-founded and the argument precedes from there to it's validly true conclusion.

However, in science, because it's scope of inquiry is limited, not because it constitutes a greater range or standard of certainty, these proofs are of an evidentiary nature than cannot be currently verified. They're rational proofs based on material evidence, albeit, as indirectly inferred.

The issue in logic is pragmatically justifiable knowledge or justifiable true belief.

The OP is not a quailed logician. His understanding of formal logic and his premise are false. That has already been established on this thread. And by the way, the Transcendental Argument, which is a direct proof based on an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition is logically bullet proof. The other arguments are premised on secondarily or indirectly established criteria.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/

 

[Justin Davis]

Yes Justin, to those of us who already understand and are looking back to frame it in perspective.
But for audience members not starting where we are, we are making leaps and skipping steps to them.
I understand that by starting with the conclusion then you work through the process from there.
I am talking about how to reach the audience that got left behind at step 1.

That's fine, though, there is plenty of work to do to gather the minds together who are ok with the proof as is,
I suggest to MD to start a steering committee of people from different faith backgrounds who can deal with
this proof and the process around it. Then use heads or teams in each approach to reach and reconcile with people who don't get this at all.

MD is like the professor trying to present material,
and needs a whole truckload of grad students in every field to work with others who don't
get what the prof is saying in his weird funky accent using examples they can't follow
and don't see how any of this applies to them. It's still enough to START the conversation
but Justin PLEASE UNDERSTAND that not all people process this the same way.

Other people like my friend Daron are still not over the Pentecostal preaching Uncle who
mortified him and the family at his Dad's funeral by announcing they were both going to hell.
Daron spent his Dad's last dying days cleaning up after his colonoscopy and being the only one
to walk his Dad through that while all the other fine Christians in the family stayed away and
enjoyed their heavenly peace of mind by avoiding suffering, and they did go through hell.
but to show up and instead of offering comfort and encouragement to rise above, to use the
funeral to preach and condemn someone to hell when they are already there, do you see
that's going to turn someone against the whole Christian thing in any form.

so to deal with people who don't get or trust the judgment of Christians.
it is wiser to start with where they are and why. and undo some of the damage and
negative perceptions ENGRAINED in peoples minds as THEIR reality.

This REALITY can change but the wounds have to heal first and cant always
be rushed with a miracle cure overnight. Most people ESPECIALLY Secular Gentiles
go through steps in a process of revisiting and healing each memory that told them
to stay away from Christians who are bigoted mean hypocrite jerkholes.

This is not an overnight fix, but takes time and individual unique steps to heal the hurts.
If you and MD are not gifted in this area, maybe Boss and me can work on that level
and process since we understand how people come in with different realities.

maybe that is not your job to address. so we need to form teams
and I even know a JW Elder who may be open since his best friend is a
secular gentile Constitutionalist and they understand they have different backgrounds for a reason.

I know some Church of Christ members concerned about addressing the JW and
liked the idea of coming together to work out longstanding issues to reconcile in Christ.

There are many different steps these people and groups need to go through
to get on the same page. So the process AROUND the proof is much larger and diverse.

The final test is at the END if people can be on the same page with you me MD Boss et al.
then we know we have forgiven and resolved our differences about God Jesus the Bible
Christianity religion etc. So it may be used to launch the process and separate
sheep from goats, but the process to work through issues and reach resolution is much
greater. the proof may also be used at the end to show we are all on the same page AFTER
we hash out all the issues with religion it brings up. I'm talking a worldwide consensus
so Jews and Muslims, Dems and GOP, blacks and whites have to make peace also to unite.

That's far beyond what your proof outlines guidelines for doing!
but thats what it takes to form a consensus on God through agreement in Christ.
all grievances will need to be rebuked and redressed because they are interconnected
in one collective spiritual peace process including everyone.

Thanks Justin you handle your part
and I will call together the people to handle the different tribes.
Yours truly,
Love, Emily

Well, I'm not certain about all this or if I'm sharp enough to get all this, but this much I do know, everyone gets the seven things beginning with the idea of God, the Creator. Those are real simple and nobody needs to be anything but maybe at least 13 years old to get.

 

[sealybobo]

Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else. It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god. And there are plenty of those.

Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported. That sounds a lot like "proof."

While I did thank you for the post. Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term God as Creator, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling. Moreover, the descriptor Creator necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists. We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question. Hence, Creator!

These are proofs, logical proofs. Science doesn't prove things at all. Logic proves or disproves things. Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible. It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.

Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!

For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Still cock blocking, I see. Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.

Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.

For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your “feelings” of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration

Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away. Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real? Well they are still Christians, aren't they? And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started. Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800. We came from a very superstitious people. Not very bright.

Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen. But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve. In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.

It's just what degree of crazy are they. If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal. It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yes Justin, to those of us who already understand and are looking back to frame it in perspective.
But for audience members not starting where we are, we are making leaps and skipping steps to them.
I understand that by starting with the conclusion then you work through the process from there.
I am talking about how to reach the audience that got left behind at step 1.

That's fine, though, there is plenty of work to do to gather the minds together who are ok with the proof as is,
I suggest to MD to start a steering committee of people from different faith backgrounds who can deal with
this proof and the process around it. Then use heads or teams in each approach to reach and reconcile with people who don't get this at all.

MD is like the professor trying to present material,
and needs a whole truckload of grad students in every field to work with others who don't
get what the prof is saying in his weird funky accent using examples they can't follow
and don't see how any of this applies to them. It's still enough to START the conversation
but Justin PLEASE UNDERSTAND that not all people process this the same way.

Other people like my friend Daron are still not over the Pentecostal preaching Uncle who
mortified him and the family at his Dad's funeral by announcing they were both going to hell.
Daron spent his Dad's last dying days cleaning up after his colonoscopy and being the only one
to walk his Dad through that while all the other fine Christians in the family stayed away and
enjoyed their heavenly peace of mind by avoiding suffering, and they did go through hell.
but to show up and instead of offering comfort and encouragement to rise above, to use the
funeral to preach and condemn someone to hell when they are already there, do you see
that's going to turn someone against the whole Christian thing in any form.

so to deal with people who don't get or trust the judgment of Christians.
it is wiser to start with where they are and why. and undo some of the damage and
negative perceptions ENGRAINED in peoples minds as THEIR reality.

This REALITY can change but the wounds have to heal first and cant always
be rushed with a miracle cure overnight. Most people ESPECIALLY Secular Gentiles
go through steps in a process of revisiting and healing each memory that told them
to stay away from Christians who are bigoted mean hypocrite jerkholes.

This is not an overnight fix, but takes time and individual unique steps to heal the hurts.
If you and MD are not gifted in this area, maybe Boss and me can work on that level
and process since we understand how people come in with different realities.

maybe that is not your job to address. so we need to form teams
and I even know a JW Elder who may be open since his best friend is a
secular gentile Constitutionalist and they understand they have different backgrounds for a reason.

I know some Church of Christ members concerned about addressing the JW and
liked the idea of coming together to work out longstanding issues to reconcile in Christ.

There are many different steps these people and groups need to go through
to get on the same page. So the process AROUND the proof is much larger and diverse.

The final test is at the END if people can be on the same page with you me MD Boss et al.
then we know we have forgiven and resolved our differences about God Jesus the Bible
Christianity religion etc. So it may be used to launch the process and separate
sheep from goats, but the process to work through issues and reach resolution is much
greater. the proof may also be used at the end to show we are all on the same page AFTER
we hash out all the issues with religion it brings up. I'm talking a worldwide consensus
so Jews and Muslims, Dems and GOP, blacks and whites have to make peace also to unite.

That's far beyond what your proof outlines guidelines for doing!
but thats what it takes to form a consensus on God through agreement in Christ.
all grievances will need to be rebuked and redressed because they are interconnected
in one collective spiritual peace process including everyone.

Thanks Justin you handle your part
and I will call together the people to handle the different tribes.
Yours truly,
Love, Emily

Well, I'm not certain about all this or if I'm sharp enough to get all this, but this much I do know, everyone gets the seven things beginning with the idea of God, the Creator. Those are real simple and nobody needs to be anything but maybe at least 13 years old to get.

Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

The Seven 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 exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
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 (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.​

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
__________________________________

By the way, something just occurred to me. I think I wrote interjection earlier on this thread in the place of interposition. LOL! Yippee! Yahoo!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported. That sounds a lot like "proof."

While I did thank you for the post. Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term God as Creator, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling. Moreover, the descriptor Creator necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists. We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question. Hence, Creator!

These are proofs, logical proofs. Science doesn't prove things at all. Logic proves or disproves things. Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible. It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.

Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!

For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Still cock blocking, I see. Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.

Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.

For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your “feelings” of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration

Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away. Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real? Well they are still Christians, aren't they? And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started. Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800. We came from a very superstitious people. Not very bright.

Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen. But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve. In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.

It's just what degree of crazy are they. If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal. It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.

We all understand that's what you want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP. And the only reason you want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism. Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right? Yeah, that's right. So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place. Got begging the question? In other words: "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist." LOL!

 

[percysunshine]

Gödel:

"The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers.. For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency."

G del s incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So...the paradox is that the theorem which proves that theorems are not really theorems is kind of haphazardly wonky.

Possibly anyway...

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

So in your world, nothing is true?

No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.

Yes, we can.