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

[Boss]

Umm, the whole point is not that multi verses would behave as our own.

The point was - their existence is not ruled out, which means what? It means that we don't know if they're eternal, or can even study them, to be able to assert that in terms of overall existence, 'something came from nothing or else god.'

Its a false choice, as of current knowledge. We are not aware that "nothing" ever was.

What does"exist" mean? Go ahead, give me your explanation and we can discuss this further. In order to have an intellectual conversation, we must first be on the same page with regard to word meanings.

We are aware that the universe began because it is in motion, creating spacetime as it expands, where physical reality is enabled. We may not know what happened before the universe began but we know by logic that physical material things couldn't have existed without a space or time to exist in. Now, could these physical material things have existed in some other state? Possible. But they couldn't exist in a material physical state without a physical reality in a universe with space and time.

 

[Boss]

'something came from nothing or else god.'

Misrepresenting what I said. I simply said something can't come from nothing, yet that is what atheists believe. It's more of a "magical" concept than spiritual nature.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...

So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.

The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.

Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.

Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?

 

[G.T.]

Anything that "exists" I would define as in "existence."

Anything at all.

I would then drop it into a couple categories:

Actual existence - wherein it doesn't just exist as an idea, but separate of anyone's knowledge it literally exists.

Theoretical existence: may or may not exist literally, but certainly exists as a concept within our minds.

When I'm talking about the possibility of multiverses, I am talking about the possibility of their ACTUAL existence, and saying that the fact that WE DONT KNOW if they actually existed or exist or not, we cannot rationally rule them out and so the question: "either there's a creator or else something came from nothing" is a false choice, because we don't know if 'nothing' (the absence of anything actually existing) ever was.

 

[G.T.]

'something came from nothing or else god.'

Misrepresenting what I said. I simply said something can't come from nothing, yet that is what atheists believe. It's more of a "magical" concept than spiritual nature.

Its not what they believe unless they tell you they believe that all of existence had a beginning.

 

[Justin Davis]

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!

For someone who says there are no absolutes you sure do believe in a lot of absolutes.

Everything I present is in the context that I could be wrong, you could be wrong, I could be right, you could be right, or we both could we wrong or right at the same time, or at any given time. Nothing is ever absolute.

"Nothing is absolute" is an absolute statement. That's a double negation proving that the positive s true, absolutes do exist, sorry, I don't buy it.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

You know that analogy is false or you couldn't even make the distinction. The idea of God you have in your mind is not a little fairy and the questions you asked me in the other post are silly. You're wait late in this debate. Your stuff is even worse than what the other atheists have said. We're way past first grade.

Quoting Rawlings:

"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. "

__________________________

You've got nothing. There'll be no fairy talk or how just any god can be plugged in. All of that silliness is over. That's not what you or anyone else things about when they think about the real idea of as the necessarily greatest being possible.

Bong. Get serious or find another place to play.

"Quoting" your cult leader? That's so cute.

"Quoting" a failed, circular argument, one that was intended to revive a dead " five things" argument is a joke.

Go flail your Pom Poms elsewhere.

Why would I write them out when I can copy and paste, fool. You know they're true, still pom poming you're idiocy?

 

[Justin Davis]

How much more absurd is it to use math to define God? Pretty much an exercise in futility.

Wrong. Nevertheless. . . .


EDIT: Post #2854.

I spelled assess as access.

See! Just like I said, a perfect example of the fact that I am no less constitutionally prone to brain farts of wrongful expression or logic. I know how it's spelled, yet misspelled it.

So, Fox, if you have a legitimate criticism, criticize and improve me.

But don't me give crap about my posts being off when you are assessing them from a perspective that starts from an entirely different premise! My perspective won't follow from your premise! It does follow, perfectly so, from mine!

And the fact that you cannot, even if you had all of eternity, refute the cogency of "The Seven Things" should be enough to alert to the fact that I'm onto something that does follow from them.

I think you intentionally misspelled it the first time it to make a point about "assessing."

 

[Boss]

Anything that "exists" I would define as in "existence."

Anything at all.

I would then drop it into a couple categories:

Actual existence - wherein it doesn't just exist as an idea, but separate of anyone's knowledge it literally exists.

Theoretical existence: may or may not exist literally, but certainly exists as a concept within our minds.

When I'm talking about the possibility of multiverses, I am talking about the possibility of their ACTUAL existence, and saying that the fact that WE DONT KNOW if they actually existed or exist or not, we cannot rationally rule them out and so the question: "either there's a creator or else something came from nothing" is a false choice, because we don't know if 'nothing' (the absence of anything actually existing) ever was.

You have not defined "exist" yet. You said "existence is something that exists" but that doesn't define what "exist" is. Before we can even get to "theoretical...actual" or any other type, we first have to define what is meant by "exist" or it's pointless.

Again, we can logically presume that if there is no space or time in which something can have physical material presence, it can't exist as a physical material presence. In other words, something physical can't exist until it has a space and time to exist in, speaking materially.

However, spiritual nature is different. It does not require physicality to exist because it is not material. This is where we get into the complicated disharmony with what atheists and theists argue. It hinges on how you perceive "exist" and what that word means to you.

 

[G.T.]

And you know other universes don't exist, and/or you know their properties?

Didn't think so.

Carry on. I'm comfortable with us disagreeing with what 'exist' means and not having to keep talking about it. I'm good.

 

[Justin Davis]

QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 10052981, member: 6847"]

So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.

The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.[/QUOTE]
Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.[/QUOTE]

Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?[/QUOTE]

If you're going to keep being childish and say things that aren't true I'll keep saying that you're saying things that aren't true. I never said I could prove God exists to anyone but anyone can logically prove that God exists. It's not my fault you're minds closed and you don't know about the difference between logical proofs that are always objectively true and subjective experiences and it's not fault that you're misusing the word proof right now.

 

[Broncho4]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

It depends on your definition of God. According to science, matter can't come from nothing. This would mean that something that we do not understand and can't contemplate with the available evidence, had to create matter. In the absence of everything there had to be something.

 

[BreezeWood]

How life evolved is explained by natural processes.

'Something coming from nothing' isn't an argument because nobody knows what existed prior to big bang, or even what may or may not exist currently outside of our universe, and if it that all even HAD a beginning or just always was.

If it always was, doesn't sound supernatural at all, to me, whereas spirits do sound supernatural to me and always will until they're proven to exist.

can you define Everlasting that does exists and whether that would include a physical object ?

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

GT!

I agree with you!

I don’t have to try again.


I'm already standing on the objectively neutral ground of logical truth as it comes to us in our minds. That’s the starting point!



Everybody on this thread, HELLO!


Dump the garbage of your subjective, indemonstrable biases and come to the objectively neutral ground of logical truth as it comes to us in our minds.

Stop cherry picking!

I agree with you, GT, and I can agree with you on that because that is true from the standpoint of the objectively neutral ground that is logically apparent to us all.

Notwithstanding, it’s necessary to forthrightly acknowledge every fact of cognition on the terrain of the objectively neutral ground of logical truth as it comes to us in our minds first. Stop cherry picking!

You asked for a proof "in the absolute sense that existence is a creation."

From the standpoint of the objectively neutral ground that is logically apparent to us all, I gave you the only one there is: it is absolutely true under the laws of organic thought that are bioneurologically hardwired in humans that to think/say "God doesn't exist" violates these laws. That thought/statement is self-negating. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist.

That's an absolute fact of human cognition!

Come to the objectively neutral ground of logical truth as it comes to us in our minds!

Stay with me.

The term God first and foremostly means Creator! It is stupid to say otherwise.

Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is making the baby talk that logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What the *bleep* is she talking about?

Ultimately, all of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that from nothing, nothing comes.

Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!​

Cut to the chase. Stop wasting time by allowing irrelevant objections to be raised.

Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, indeed, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the reductio ad absurdum of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the construct of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. Shut up!

(Not you, GT, you’re an agnostic for that reason. You get it. I'm talking to those being stupid.)

In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified. In fact, it defies the cause-and-effect dynamic of science as bottomed on one apriority of naturalism or another.

In logic it remains an absurdity until such time direct evidence, though direct evidence that would necessarily consist of . . . nothingness is yet another absurdity, falsifies the standing axiom of substantive cause and effect.

We do not proceed from rational or experiential absurdities in either logic or science.

The only reason that logic, not science, allows for this hypothesis is because the principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if logic didn't permit it. And in that we have yet another example evincing the fact that QW doen't know what he's talking about.

Notwithstanding!

Because the logical principle of identity allows for paradox. . . .

This incontrovertible axiom of human cognition due to the bioneurologically hardwired laws of thought (which, by the way, Boss keeps violating, as we all can see, making no sense at all) regarding divine origin also tells us that it's possible that this axiom that is absolutely true INSIDE the world of our minds might not be absolutely true in the ultimate reality OUTSIDE of our minds, as it might just be a mere accident of nature.

Notwithstanding again!

This does, however, put us into the realm of paradox, as this axiom does not beg the question (stop it, GT, as you're doing a Boss!), for it is an axiom of the very same nature as 2 + 2 = 4. In other words, it's an axiom based on the very same standard of organic logic that evinces 2 + 2 = 4. We do not say that axiomatic or tautological intuitions beg the question. If that were so, then mathematics begs the question too, for mathematics is a priori, not a posteriori!

The conclusion that God must be based on this axiom is coherent, not paradoxical. The conclusion that it's a mere accident of nature, though a conceivably real potentiality, is paradoxical.

Stand on the latter conclusion if you want, but don't tell me that you can honestly stand on the objectively neutral ground of logical truth as it comes to us in our minds and pretend that it's not paradoxical.

That's all.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

Just be real with yourself and me, GT.

 

[G.T.]

How life evolved is explained by natural processes.

'Something coming from nothing' isn't an argument because nobody knows what existed prior to big bang, or even what may or may not exist currently outside of our universe, and if it that all even HAD a beginning or just always was.

If it always was, doesn't sound supernatural at all, to me, whereas spirits do sound supernatural to me and always will until they're proven to exist.

can you define Everlasting that does exists and whether that would include a physical object ?

.

I can't define what I can't study. But I also cannot rule it out.

 

[G.T.]

I'm being very real here.

Existence is not proven to have been 'created,' nor is 'something from nothing' the only other explanation other than 'creator.'

So - using a 'creatOR' in a logical argument is not rational because its not yet proven existence was creatED.

 

[Boss]

"Nothing is absolute" is an absolute statement. That's a double negation proving that the positive s true, absolutes do exist, sorry, I don't buy it.

It's not a double negation because there is no negative value. Absolute means "universally valid" in the context which I am using it. As I have already stated, my comments are delivered in the context that I a may be wrong. i.e.; it's my opinion. When I state that "nothing is absolute" it is not an absolute statement, it is my opinion which may be wrong.... granted, it is not likely, but that possibility exists. Now, I could have really confused you if I said "nothing is universally valid except for nothing is universally valid."

But now... Let us set aside this silly little semantics snafu you've raised... I want to know what the **** your problem is? Why do you continue to be contrary, argumentative, disagreeable, defiant, belligerent... toward ME? Did I do or say something to you personally at some time? Have we had some unrelated disagreement on politics or something in another thread? Does my avatar or nickname offend you somehow? What exactly is the reason for all this negative angst I am getting from you? Because it doesn't make sense to me at all.

I have, thus far, gone out of my way to be respectful to you, respectful of your opinions and arguments, but you just keep on nipping at my heels as if you have some kind of a beef with me personally. If you want to turn me into your nemesis, let me just warn you that I can hurt feelings with words. I'm very good at it, and you won't like that side of me. So I am letting you know, one last time, you need to get your attitude in check and stop jumping my shit for no reason.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

How much more absurd is it to use math to define God? Pretty much an exercise in futility.

Wrong. Nevertheless. . . .


EDIT: Post #2854.

I spelled assess as access.

See! Just like I said, a perfect example of the fact that I am no less constitutionally prone to brain farts of wrongful expression or logic. I know how it's spelled, yet misspelled it.

So, Fox, if you have a legitimate criticism, criticize and improve me.

But don't me give crap about my posts being off when you are assessing them from a perspective that starts from an entirely different premise! My perspective won't follow from your premise! It does follow, perfectly so, from mine!

And the fact that you cannot, even if you had all of eternity, refute the cogency of "The Seven Things" should be enough to alert to the fact that I'm onto something that does follow from them.

I think you intentionally misspelled it the first time it to make a point about "assessing."

Nah. Didn't think about that. I'm not that clever, I guess. I just brain farted. Naturally, I've used both terms on this thread and spelled them correctly, just not that time. Doh! I do that sometimes. I do about 60 words a minute, and sometimes I just do 60 words a minute. Taught myself the skill from a book several years ago because searching and picking at it was driving me crazy. Took me longer to learn than others probably because I had to break a lot of bad habits that kept making my want to look down.

 

[G.T.]

"Nothing is absolute" is an absolute statement. That's a double negation proving that the positive s true, absolutes do exist, sorry, I don't buy it.

It's not a double negation because there is no negative value. Absolute means "universally valid" in the context which I am using it. As I have already stated, my comments are delivered in the context that I a may be wrong. i.e.; it's my opinion. When I state that "nothing is absolute" it is not an absolute statement, it is my opinion which may be wrong.... granted, it is not likely, but that possibility exists. Now, I could have really confused you if I said "nothing is universally valid except for nothing is universally valid."

But now... Let us set aside this silly little semantics snafu you've raised... I want to know what the **** your problem is? Why do you continue to be contrary, argumentative, disagreeable, defiant, belligerent... toward ME? Did I do or say something to you personally at some time? Have we had some unrelated disagreement on politics or something in another thread? Does my avatar or nickname offend you somehow? What exactly is the reason for all this negative angst I am getting from you? Because it doesn't make sense to me at all.

I have, thus far, gone out of my way to be respectful to you, respectful of your opinions and arguments, but you just keep on nipping at my heels as if you have some kind of a beef with me personally. If you want to turn me into your nemesis, let me just warn you that I can hurt feelings with words. I'm very good at it, and you won't like that side of me. So I am letting you know, one last time, you need to get your attitude in check and stop jumping my shit for no reason.

So you do NOT consider it absolute that 'spiritual evidence' exists, then, because 'nothing is absolute' is a quote I'm pulling from the gentleman who claims spiritual evidence exists.

 

[Broncho4]

I'm being very real here.

Existence is not proven to have been 'created,' nor is 'something from nothing' the only other explanation other than 'creator.'

So - using a 'creatOR' in a logical argument is not rational because its not yet proven existence was creatED.

You seem to be asking for proof of a negative. Can you give an example of anything in any application that was not created?