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

[Boss]

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.

Do we disagree with what "exist" means? Did you ever define it? I missed that if you did. I asked for that, but you danced around it.

I never said that other universes didn't exist or that I knew their properties. I asked you what "exist" means to you. We don't know if other universes exist, or if they exist in the context we understand "exist" which you can't even explain to me. There is no universal law of physics which states that any other possible universe must conform to our universe's laws and principles. That seems to be some mighty hubristic thinking on your part and an invalid assumption you may be making about other possible universes.

 

[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?

Something that always was.

So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin? There is no evidence of anything like that in existence. Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end. Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end. Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?

 

[Justin Davis]

"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.

Sorry but that's one of the first things you learn in the study of the laws of logic, which I had to learn from Lang to understand him. Saying there's no absolutes is what they call a hidden double negative in classical logic. What you're really saying is that there's no absolutes but the absolute that there's no absolutes, double negative, violates the law of contradiction. If there's no absolutes then the absolute that there's no absolutes is not an absolute, so the opposite is true. There are absolutes. That's how that goes. There's no way to get around that absolute logically and when you say it out you can that's logically false.

 

[Boss]

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.

I don't consider it absolute because "exist" has not been absolutely defined, "evidence" has not been absolutely defined, and "spiritual" has not been absolutely defined. It is my opinion that spiritual nature exists and provides plenty of spiritual evidence.

 

[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."

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.

I learned to key in high school with my girlfriend. She's why I took the class, to make her my girlfriend, now my wife. I was all thumbs sometimes on purpose so she would help me. Thought I was pretty sneaking until she told me that she always liked me too and I could stop faking it now. Busted.

 

[Justin Davis]

When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...

When Hollie posts I have to wipe the vomit off my screen first, then I get the picture.

 

[Boss]

Except.....I didnt say they must comform to our laws and principles.

I said very specifically that if they exist, their nature is unknown. If you blew past that to make a gotcha.....then what? Keep wasting time?

I also defined existence. You simple rejected my definition as not a definition. I'm fine with that. We disagree. I'm not losing sleep, I can move onto other things since we are at a stand still on that conversation.

Well if we don't know whether other universes "exist" or even what "existing" means in context of one of these possible universes, then they can't be the basis for any argument pertaining to the universe we are aware of. And no... you simply did not define what "exist" means, you dodged the question by stating that "exist means in existence." I don't know if we disagree, you've avoided answering my question, and now you claim it's not important and you're moving on. Well, okay, but it IS important, it's downright fundamental to the debate.

 

[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?

Something that always was.

So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin? There is no evidence of anything like that in existence. Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end. Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end. Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?

i believe we don't currently HAVE an answer.

I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category. Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...

 

[Taz]

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.

Are you guys saying that scientists have verified exorcisms? Really? Got a link? I'd be interested to read more...

 

[Hollie]

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?

When you can't defend your claims to magical spirit realms, spam is a poor substitute.

I'm not the one who claims magic, you are. Spiritual nature is not magic, it's natural. Magic is where nothing caused something and everything came from nothing to reorganize into self-replicating bits which produced dinosaurs. That's what you believe, not me. When asked to defend your claim of magic, you shrug and admit you don't have any answer for it.

...Then you projectile-vomit split-pea soup in my face! lol

As I thought, your pointless claim that "the results are in" is a fraud. If you're going to assert that the gods are in any way connected to supernatural healing, you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.

It's just an unfortunate thing that your ignorance of science is promoted in a public forum such as this. Your really ignorant tirade surrounding dinosaurs is pointless and serves only to demonstrate the dangers of religious extremism. You would be best served to limit your comments to the silliness surrounding your magical spirit realms. We can laugh at that with the understanding that you're just a harmless nuisance.

...you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.
And we have already established that will never happen because you will consistently reject all evidence. There are not "various gods" and no one here has made such an argument. Where is that coming from? Your empty little noggin, that's where.

I can't reject evidence you cannot provide. And yes, there are various gods. You may have missed it but your gods are not the only assertions of gods.

In the meantime, where is the evidence for the various spirits that inhabit your magical spirit realms? You claim to have evidence, so, present the evidence. Just remember that your evidence needs to be rational and subject to quantitative review.

It doesn't matter what the evidence is. I could present you God's DNA and you'd reject it and not consider it evidence. You don't care about evidence, you never have and never will. You want to reject God and challenge others to try and make you believe in God. Guess what? You win! No one can ever make you believe in God.

It actually does matter what evidence can be presented. That's exactly why I've made the point that you continually fail to present evidence of your magical spirit realms while insisting that these realms exist and the spirit realms are inhabited by your gods.

If I didn't care about evidence, I wouldn't be the one requiring you to provide evidence you refuse to submit.

 

[Broncho4]

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

Something that always was.

So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin? There is no evidence of anything like that in existence. Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end. Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end. Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?

i believe we don't currently HAVE an answer.

I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category. Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...

Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.

Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.

To simply state that there is a branch of science that poses a theory that "somethings" always were, without any evidence to support that theory while simultaneously rejecting a contradicting and similarly non-provable theory, is not a sound argument.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

Something that always was.

So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin? There is no evidence of anything like that in existence. Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end. Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end. Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?

i believe we don't currently HAVE an answer.

I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category. Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...

Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.

Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.

Which is why I agree with Hollie when she says she's not necessarily arguing from nothing, nothing comes. Arguably, the quantum vacuum may have always existed. None of the classic arguments for God's existence, except the I AMs of the Transcendental and the Ontological, can be effectively asserted until the laws of thought and The Seven Things that are objectively true for all, apprehensively and logically, are established.