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

[Boss]

Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.

How Old is the Universe

There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic

Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.

So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.

You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.

Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.

Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate.
Which goes back to my original point. You are not capable of comprehending "spiritual existence" so you can't grasp any of this concept at all. In your limited mind, the only "exist" is a physical state of existing, and since you find no evidence of God's physical existence, you deduce there must not be a God. No one can show you physical evidence for God because God isn't physical, yet that's the only kind of "existing" you can comprehend.

 

[emilynghiem]

Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.

How Old is the Universe

There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic

Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.

So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.

You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.

Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.

Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists

As for the idea of God, that's nonsense. You didn't understand did you? The statement that "God doesn't exist" violates the laws of organic thought. It's contradictory and is logically a statement that He does exist. The evidence for God's existence, rational, mathematical and empirical, is powerful. Nil probability? You just made that up out of thin air. That's not why they don't believe He exists. They don't believe He exists based on nothing at all but blind, stupid faith.

Dear Justin: God exists by logic where you and I and MD agreed to define God equals something we agreed exists.

Some ppl don't agree with that definition.

I think Tuatara may come from the same school of thought
as Godel, who I cited and GT and PercySunshine also:

That God meaning something infinite
can neither be proven nor disproven by man's finite means

Only if we AGREE to use God to mean something we AGREE exists
like collective truth, laws and life then we can prove it using logic because
we already defined these things and agreed they exist and align consistentlyl

no need to take issues with Tuatara who is
merely pointing out what I said and also what
MD said that science doesn't prove anything,
that's why he uses the logic proof with global symbols
that covers all cases. that's fine but the people lik eyou
and me who follow MD TAG proof AGREE to define
God as such, so this excludes people who don't agree to that
opening definition. thanks, this is why I offer to use the science
approach to demonstrate spiritual healing for poeple who need to see
some concrete science and don't relate to defining it in terms of logic.

 

[Boss]

I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.

As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.

 

[Boss]

I'm not attacking you. I agree with you kind of. I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God. That's what you're really saying. Stop saying that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.

I didn't say objectivity and subjectivity were the same thing or that we can't have knowledge. How about stop acting like a jackwagon who can't read my posts? I keep having to correct you on what I've said, and I am typing in plain English.

Again (because you seem to be a hard head)... We humans create words to define various things and concepts... "Objectivity" is a word that we assign a certain value to which we call a "definition." Are you following me so far? I haven't lost you or said something you can't comprehend, have I? Now, the word "objectivity" means we've examined evidence without bias to form our opinion. Still following me? Do you not agree with this? Okay.... because we are human, we have bias. Because we are human, we are not omniscient. Therefore, even when we say we have been "objective" or "objectively" evaluated the evidence, we are subject to error as humans who do have bias. I did not say we intentionally do this, or that we are liars. Just that we are human. Our "objectivity" is subject to our own rationalizations and determinations of what is objective to us. In other words, it is subjective.

Same with knowing truth. Unless we are omniscient, we can never KNOW truth. That has nothing to do with "knowledge" or how we define "knowledge." It has to do with our inability to know truth because we are not omniscient beings. We believe we know truth... that's the best humans can ever do.

Now, either you GET what I have explained or you don't. If you don't get it, just say, "Boss, I don't get it!" No need to denigrate and insult me by twisting my words out of context and spitting them back in my face.

Boss, because Justin is talking about knowledge in terms of God's existence from the necessity of axiomatic first principles, he means true knowledge, knowledge about what is actually true. You're saying that we can never know truth. He's saying that we can. So he is not misreading you. Also, it does not follow that because we are finite minds that we cannot know truth. It does not follow that just because we cannot know the whole truth, we cannot know aspects of the whole truth in truth.

As for what Justin means, how do I know that? Well, it's not magic or because Justin is morphing. LOL! Fox is deluded because she's reacting rather than thinking things through. The Seven Things are objectively and universally true, and every one of the atheists here know that, except, perhaps, Hollie. She appears to be a person of an unsound mind. She has real psychological problems. Rather, I know Justin's from his posts, including the one he just posted. He's asserting the major premise of the Transcendental Argument, which holds that knowledge is not possible unless God exists. It follows that if God exists, we can have true knowledge. Now as far as the details of what Justin believes beyond that, I cannot say, but foundationally he's telling you the same thing I told you here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043131/

Drop the violations of the second law of thought and come to the realization that we can and do know truth.

Most of those whom you have engaged, including the atheists, know intuitively that you're wrong. You're only one step away from the realty of things.

I still maintain that unless we are OMNISCIENT we cannot KNOW truth. We can BELIEVE that we know truth. Our BELIEF may be very well reasoned and logical, and lots of people may concur with it. Our BELIEF may conform to logic and common sense, and might even be true. Some people may even believe they are omniscient and do know truth.

Most of those whom you have engaged, including the atheists, know intuitively that you're wrong. You're only one step away from the realty of things.

And I have already told you that the brow-beating me in front of the Atheists isn't going to work, it doesn't bother me, it's not making me change my mind. It actually causes me to lose respect for you. I think you've made some great arguments here, I've made a point to tell you this several times now, I've thanked your posts and defended your positions, but still you seem to want to denigrate me by speaking on behalf of others (including the atheists), when you really have no business doing that.

 

[Boss]

I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.

As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.

That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.

If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.

How do you know what "existence" looks like in another universe?

 

[Boss]

I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.

As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.

That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.

If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.

Yes, I already said there are no absolutes, we cannot KNOW truth, and everything in physical science is a hypothesis. That's why my comment included "at least as much as anything can actually be proven." We can't even "prove" reality exists, it might simply be an illusion... In fact, Einstein also said THAT!

 

[Boss]

Didn't even IMPLY I knew what it would look like.

Really?

"this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow."

Sounds like you did just that.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not attacking you. I agree with you kind of. I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God. That's what you're really saying. Stop saying that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.

I didn't say objectivity and subjectivity were the same thing or that we can't have knowledge. How about stop acting like a jackwagon who can't read my posts? I keep having to correct you on what I've said, and I am typing in plain English.

Again (because you seem to be a hard head)... We humans create words to define various things and concepts... "Objectivity" is a word that we assign a certain value to which we call a "definition." Are you following me so far? I haven't lost you or said something you can't comprehend, have I? Now, the word "objectivity" means we've examined evidence without bias to form our opinion. Still following me? Do you not agree with this? Okay.... because we are human, we have bias. Because we are human, we are not omniscient. Therefore, even when we say we have been "objective" or "objectively" evaluated the evidence, we are subject to error as humans who do have bias. I did not say we intentionally do this, or that we are liars. Just that we are human. Our "objectivity" is subject to our own rationalizations and determinations of what is objective to us. In other words, it is subjective.

Same with knowing truth. Unless we are omniscient, we can never KNOW truth. That has nothing to do with "knowledge" or how we define "knowledge." It has to do with our inability to know truth because we are not omniscient beings. We believe we know truth... that's the best humans can ever do.

Now, either you GET what I have explained or you don't. If you don't get it, just say, "Boss, I don't get it!" No need to denigrate and insult me by twisting my words out of context and spitting them back in my face.

Boss, because Justin is talking about knowledge in terms of God's existence from the necessity of axiomatic first principles, he means true knowledge, knowledge about what is actually true. You're saying that we can never know truth. He's saying that we can. So he is not misreading you. Also, it does not follow that because we are finite minds that we cannot know truth. It does not follow that just because we cannot know the whole truth, we cannot know aspects of the whole truth in truth.

As for what Justin means, how do I know that? Well, it's not magic or because Justin is morphing. LOL! Fox is deluded because she's reacting rather than thinking things through. The Seven Things are objectively and universally true, and every one of the atheists here know that, except, perhaps, Hollie. She appears to be a person of an unsound mind. She has real psychological problems. Rather, I know Justin's from his posts, including the one he just posted. He's asserting the major premise of the Transcendental Argument, which holds that knowledge is not possible unless God exists. It follows that if God exists, we can have true knowledge. Now as far as the details of what Justin believes beyond that, I cannot say, but foundationally he's telling you the same thing I told you here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043131/

Drop the violations of the second law of thought and come to the realization that we can and do know truth.

Most of those whom you have engaged, including the atheists, know intuitively that you're wrong. You're only one step away from the realty of things.

That's true, Boss. Join the cult of M. Pompous Rawling (you can be cult member 2 behind Justin), you too can become all a thumper can be.

Just memorize "the seven things". That's the shahada for membership and you will prostrate yourself at the alter of "the seven things" at prayer vigils five times per day.

Your prostrating before the very same alter, as are we all, so welcome to my world. Amen.

Sorry, but no. There's nothing about fraud that have a need to tolerate.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie said:

“Faith is needed only when reason fails.”

Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.

Which equals atheism.

Which means you're not understanding a number of very basic precepts.

 

[Tuatara]

Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.

How Old is the Universe

There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic

Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.

So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.

You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.

Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.

Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists

As for the idea of God, that's nonsense. You didn't understand did you? The statement that "God doesn't exist" violates the laws of organic thought. It's contradictory and is logically a statement that He does exist.

Would you extend this exact rule to every other god? Didn't think so. Now we really see who's statement is contadictory and illogical.

The evidence for God's existence, rational, mathematical and empirical, is powerful.

Sorry but there has been zero evidence.

Nil probability? You just made that up out of thin air. That's not why they don't believe He exists. They don't believe He exists based on nothing at all but blind, stupid faith.

Faith means believing in something without evidence. Please provide the tiniest shred of evidence. I will even award you the pullitzer prize myself.

 

[Tuatara]

Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.

How Old is the Universe

There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic

Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.

So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.

You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.

Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.

Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate.
Which goes back to my original point. You are not capable of comprehending "spiritual existence" so you can't grasp any of this concept at all. In your limited mind, the only "exist" is a physical state of existing, and since you find no evidence of God's physical existence, you deduce there must not be a God. No one can show you physical evidence for God because God isn't physical, yet that's the only kind of "existing" you can comprehend.

So I just put in the word fairy instead of God. Your argument remains the same. Do you believe in fairies.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hollie said:

“Faith is needed only when reason fails.”

Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.

Which equals atheism.

No these are Not equals.
Yes and no.

1. When Hollie points out leaps in logic that MD makes
she blames it on "theist bias"
2. When others reject God by making assumption
that is blamed on "atheist bias"

Obviously, leaps in logic are not limited
to either one.

a. you can make leaps in logic and NOT be atheist
b. you can make leaps in logic and NOT be theist
c. you can be atheist and NOT make leaps in logic
d. you can be theist and NOT make leaps in logic
e. you can be atheist and make leaps in logic
f. you can be theist and make leaps in logic

Any combination is possible

What I hear people complaining about is:
THAT PERSON is making a "leap in logic" I don't follow

So let's eliminate the leaps and disconnects
and not waste time blaming one side or the other

 

[emilynghiem]

Faith means believing in something without evidence. Please provide the tiniest shred of evidence. I will even award you the pullitzer prize myself.

Challenge accepted.

The Spiritual Healing process that requires Faith in Forgiveness
(ie agreeing to pray for forgiveness first, and then receiving healing afterwards)
can be demonstrated as effective, natural, valid and consistent with science and medicine.

So you can prove both that this process is real and works following the same pattern or process
for all people though the results vary because people's ill conditions vary in complexity and length to recover and heal,
AND you can prove it is valid what Christians teach
by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
to cast out demonic influences making these people sick.

So this can be demonstrated using medical science.

Tuatara I can post a reference to a medical study done on Rheumatoid Arthritis
it is not the study itself, but a description of it that is included in
Francis MacNutt's book on Healing, edition 1999 or later when this study was added later.

I have asked Hollie and Justin to consider this approach to proving
a process within the Christian teachings to be consistent with natural science.

So far, GT has offered to look into it, and percysunshine is willing to consider
this angle.

How about you and Hollie?

If you are serious about this challenge
I agree it is Nobel Prize material to
bridge the gap between science and religion.

This is huge and would change our mental health systems,
medical and criminal justice systems to focus on diagnosis and rehab
because this same method of healing mental and physical ills
can also be applied to heal criminal illness, drug and sexual abuse/addiction,
and even heal relationships so this would end abuse, crime, violence, bullying, war etc.
by healing people and relations of mental ills, physical ills, social ills, etc.

This is very big.

I hope you can see this by looking into it
and realizing the impact this would have
to share this knowledge scientifically so there
is no more false division between science and religion,
faith and reason, but these are shown to be consistent systems

Let me know if you are serious Tuatara

GT and Percysunshine seem neutral and objective enough

Hollie and Justin seem more content to poke and slam back
and forth and may not be serious about resolving anything through science.

As much faith as Justin has, if he does not have faith that science can prove
spiritual healing, his faith may not be complete.

And if Hollie were so sure she was right that nothing in Christianity is true,
it would be no loss to look into scientific research of spiritual healing to
see whether or not that can be proven natural and effective.

Maybe Hollie and Justin are too afraid of the implications
of change if science and religion were to show a consistent healing process.

That means forgiveness does work to heal.
And maybe that is too threatening to Justin and Hollie
to forgive other atheists and theists to the same degree
that spiritual healing uses in order to cure these ills.

Maybe that is why they will skirt and avoid the question,
if they are not ready to forgive, and that is the basis of
how and why spiritual healing works; and failure to forgive
is what makes the process fail.

Maybe they want it to fail so they can blame the other.
Tuatara, are you open to proving this authority of God
by science? This has already been shown, but people
like Hollie and Justin aren't ready to look at the process
becuase it would end the fight between science and religion
and they'd rather keep fighting because that's what they are used to.

I don't think they would even know what to do if science and religion
were reconciled and there was no more reason to pick fights!

 

[emilynghiem]

There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic

Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.

So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.

You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.

Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.

Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate.
Which goes back to my original point. You are not capable of comprehending "spiritual existence" so you can't grasp any of this concept at all. In your limited mind, the only "exist" is a physical state of existing, and since you find no evidence of God's physical existence, you deduce there must not be a God. No one can show you physical evidence for God because God isn't physical, yet that's the only kind of "existing" you can comprehend.

So I just put in the word fairy instead of God. Your argument remains the same. Do you believe in fairies.

No fairies is not equal to what people mean by God.

You would have to substitute something that is equivalent.

God = Life, truth, love, wisdom, good will, universal laws, collective set of all truths
or as MD and Justin are saying God = collective source or set of all knowledge

Tuatara if you believe truth can be verified by science
I propose to apply science to proving Spiritual Healing
according to these sources I have found to be
following/applying and teaching the practice consistently:
http://www.spirtual-healing.us

The reason this is the equivalent of proving God is that
this Spiritual Healing process requires the same forgivnees
to bring healing as it does to reach agreement on God.
And also, the specific applicaitno of Spiritual Healing to
cast out demonic voices, influences and personalities
making people sick uses the authority of Christ Jesus as God
to compel the demonic/satanic entities to be removed from the person's mind.

One of my close friends who is atheist
used this spiritual healing to get rid of demonic rage.
Only after the healing process was he finally able to
get rid of those thoughts he couldn't control before.
He didn't think they would ever leave. But after the process
of forgiveness and deliverance, which uses the authoiryt
of Christ even though he is atheist and doesn't beleive in that,
it still worked. he was able to keep those demonic rages out of his head.

So this can be demonstrated by repeating the process on people
like my friend with that demonic rage from abuse,
and like the Schizophrenic patients in Dr. Peck's book who were
also cured of demonic voices and persoanlities that had taken over their minds.

This would prove that Christians are right that this prayer in Christ Jesus
works to heal people.

And it would show that if someone is atheist, then after they are
healed, they can still remain atheist, they don't have to convert.

I know people who were healed and remain nontheist.

So there is no reason to fear that it is for some religious agenda.

The spiritual process of healing is natural, free, does not
require anyone to join a group before or after and doesn't
necessarily convert anyone unless that is natural for you to do that anyway.

The only requirement is to agree to pray for forgivneess
in order to remove the blocks to healing so that
the natural healing energy can flow through and heal
the mind body spirit and relationships.

Jus tlike going to the doctor.
You would have to agree to go through the medical process
to receive treatment; and with spiritual healing you would have
to agree to go through the steps of asking help with forgiveness
and then it works. Just asking opens the channels for the
help with forgivness and healing, so that's why it works for
peole of any faith background; and that's why it fails if
people refuse to forgive and they block their own healing.

Science can show both the successes and failures
and document the correlation between forgivness and
successful healing/recovery and the correlation between
unforgiveness and failure to heal or resolve conflicts.

 

[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".

Are you sure about that? How about as a means of reading His mind as He speaks to us about Himself?

While it is true that "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", it is also true that the implications of infinity as symbolically or mathematically rendered, particularly in model logic, prove God's necessity. Indeed, these proofs, beginning with Gödel's, have been run through computer simulations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html

The calculi that demonstrate the infinite density of vacuum energy in quantum electrodynamics have profound transcendental implications too.

And as I demonstrated on this thread, the principle of identity proves that any given A of a single predicate can be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously . . . and the implications of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals. . . .

But then let's also look at the number line, you know, one of those As of a single predicate apprehended via the logical principle of identity that is comprised of an infinite set of numbers simultaneously. Indeed, it has infinities within it's infinite set of numbers as the law of division holds. You do recall the functional proof I provided in calculus, don't you?

Yeah. Let us consider the implications of the number line in terms of the construct of the eternal now as extrapolated from the logical principle of identity while that line infinity stretches out for eternity on either side of ground 0 at the center of the now in the light of that incontrovertible axiom of divine identity that cannot be logically refuted without proving that God must be: TAG.

Listen up, Fox, God is talking to us all the time, particularly through the mathematics of infinity: I AM!

Objectively speaking, mathematics would necessarily be the purist form of intellectual communication between God and man, as it's nature is a priori and lines up perfectly, yet another proof for the universality of the principle of identity, with the world of a posteriori knowledge. Yep! Where human language breaks down in the explication of the laws of physics, the language of mathematics coherently keeps right on trucking as it defines, delineates and describes. The idea that mathematics is the language of divinity packed with profound transcendental implications is hardly anything new: a tradition of belief that goes back centuries and includes the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton, Pascal, Einstein. . . .

https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~kvikram/htmls/read/maths.htm

Currently, the most famous proponent is physicist Michio Kaku: http://bigthink.com/videos/dr-michio-kaku-math-is-the-mind-of-god

By the way, because they're inherently premised on the first principle of existence (the cosmological order), the most immediately intuited and scream the universal language of mathematics via the logical principle of identity: the variously asserted transcendental and ontological arguments, in that order, are the most powerfully compelling, not the cosmological.