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

[Hollie]

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.

It's always easy to tell when the angry fundies are at a loss to defend their magical gawds and spirit realms: they slam the board with their irrelevant piffle.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Which is why I agree with M. Pompous Rawling when he acknowledges he is not arguing from a position of reason and rationality and thus, must qualify his arguments as deriving from the perspective of Theological / philosophical conventions for pwoofs of his various gods. Why would any qualification in philosophy be necessary? The issues here are not philosophical. The natural world (to exclude such supernatural inventions as gods and spirit realms) are entirely a scientific issue. The natural, ie:, rational world, can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to philosophy.

This is why religionists, supernaturalists, ect., tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

 

[G.T.]

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.

I would never entertain the transcendental argument as rational. It fails, to me, on a number of levels.

Its water under the bridge at this point.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed. That's one of the two ultimate options of origin: materiality or transcendent immateriality. And as you are correct say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand. What's the grounds for that? Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable.

The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it! That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!

But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away:

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.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

I would never entertain the transcendental argument as rational. It fails, to me, on a number of levels.

Its water under the bridge at this point.

It does not fail on any level whatsoever, and you know it does not fail, GT, as the only legitimate objection is to say that this axiom of human cognition does not hold outside our minds, though in order to do that you must simultaneously hold, contradictorily/paradoxically, that mathematics, which are equally a priori in nature, apply universally.

So you will not acknowledge the facts of or come to the objectively neutral ground of logical truth as it comes to us in our minds. So you are not an agnostic in spirit or in truth at all, but a subjectivist and a materialist-leaning atheist with no interest in objectively sound logic at all.

So your question regarding the issue of the universe being a creation in fact was merely rhetorical with no real interest in following your own logic, the universal logic, to the actual natures of the alternate options. Check? I just thought I'd verify that.

 

[Broncho4]

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.

Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed. That's one of the two ultimate options of origin: materiality or transcendent immateriality. And as you are correct say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand. What's the grounds for that? Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable.

The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it! That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!

But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away:

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.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​

While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache. I think I grasp what you are saying. My question (for now) is on #4. Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God. Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...

 

[G.T.]

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.

I would never entertain the transcendental argument as rational. It fails, to me, on a number of levels.

Its water under the bridge at this point.

It does not fail on any level whatsoever, and you know it does not fail, GT, as the only legitimate objection is to say that this axiom of human cognition does not hold outside our minds, though in order to do that you must simultaneously hold, contradictorily/paradoxically, that mathematics, which are equally a priori in nature, apply universally.

So you will not acknowledge the facts of or come to the objectively neutral ground of logical truth as it comes to us in our minds. So you are not an agnostic in spirit or in truth at all, but a subjectivist and a materialist-leaning atheist with no interest in objectively sound logic at all.

wrong.

I'm an agnostic who is not compelled to think that absolute truth needs or has a creator, and so I reject it as an axiom until something rational proves as much.

It hasnt.

 

[G.T.]

Also..
..

The seven things - many of them are quite arbitrary.

 

[G.T.]

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!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."

Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.

You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
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)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
(EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.

__________________________

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed. That's one of the two ultimate options of origin: materiality or transcendent immateriality. And as you correctly say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand. What's the grounds for that? Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable.

The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back the veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it! That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!

But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away:

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.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​

While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache. I think I grasp what you are saying. [1] My question (for now) is on #4. Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God. Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...

Why should it give you a headache? It's clear and precise, unless, perhaps, you're not familiar with quantum physics or some of the other terms. #4 doesn't presuppose there is only one god; rather, it asserts the necessity of a supremely unparalleled Being of origin regardless how many "gods" might also being lurking in the transcendental realm of being. Bottom line: the idea of a spiritual origin ultimately goes to some form of sentience at the top of the heap. That's why all of the polytheistic religions of history have always had a big wheel at the top. But even if, objectively speaking, there existed a multitude of gods of equal standing who created the cosmos together, that becomes, collectively, the idea of God that universally exists in our minds for the spiritual option that cannot be logically eliminated. See how that works? Four holds and seven holds.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."

Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.

You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
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)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
(EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.

__________________________

I'm sorry. You must have missed this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/

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!



. . . 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!​

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


LOL!


So now you're telling us that you're an atheist again, right? Let me know when you make up your mind.

 

[Boss]

Exist means present or having been present in objective reality, where said presence is not dependent upon whether or not it is known to be present, or have been present.

I'm not arguing that multiverses exist or existed.

I'm saying their mere possibility and their unknown nature, as well as things other than 'universes' MAY exist, and MAY have no beginning but are eternal, means 'god, or else something from nothing' are not the only two possibilities to rule in or out.

Exist means present or having been present in objective reality, where said presence is not dependent upon whether or not it is known to be present, or have been present.

Well okay, but I have to say this is a rather convoluted definition. It opens the door to questions regarding what you mean by "present/presence" and "objective reality." So we need to define those terms before we can even understand what you mean by "existing." Then you say "having been present" ...does that mean things exist when they no longer exist? Seems to be a contradiction in reason there. Then there is the question of "whether or not it is known to be" ...so things can exist even if we don't know they exist and have no evidence for their existence whatsoever and no way to understand them?

I am making a point with this exercise, and I realize it is a bit frustrating to you, but the point is important to this debate. It is very difficult to accurately pin down an acceptable definition of what "exist" means. In your definition, we have to rely on "objective reality" which is simply put, our perception of reality. Likewise, the term "presence" can objectively mean different things in our own reality. Therefore, our personal understanding of what does or does not "exist" is dependent upon our own rationalizations, our own comprehensions, our own objective reasoning. There is not a universal understanding here, it's ambiguous.

And this is why the question of God rages on. After thousands and thousands of years, humans contemplating and arguing, we are no closer to a universal understanding. Some believe God "exists" and others do not believe God "exists" and the beat goes on.

I'm saying their [other universes] mere possibility and their unknown nature, as well as things other than 'universes' MAY exist, and MAY have no beginning but are eternal, means 'god, or else something from nothing' are not the only two possibilities to rule in or out.

And I agree with this, which is why I corrected your assertion this was MY argument. I've never made that argument. You misread my comment to an Atheist who rejects the possibility of God and assumes something comes from nothing. You're actually making the same point I am making, there are other possibilities, including the existence of God. The notion that something came from nothing is not in accordance with science or physics in our universe because something can't come from nothing. Therefore, such a thing would be "magic" by any definition. There is probably a better explanation.

Now... I cannot speak for other universes that we don't even know exist, but THIS universe appears to not be "eternal" because it is in motion. We theorize it began with a big bang. Entropy is happening, so it appears order descends into chaos in our universe, which indicates again, our universe is not eternal. Perhaps other universes, if they exist, ARE eternal? Perhaps that is where Spiritual Nature resides? Again... POSSIBILITIES!

 

[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.

It's always easy to tell when the angry fundies are at a loss to defend their magical gawds and spirit realms: they slam the board with their irrelevant piffle.

If that's true then that's true about you in spades, for piffle is your middle name. Hollie Piffle Vomit.

 

[G.T.]

Exist means present or having been present in objective reality, where said presence is not dependent upon whether or not it is known to be present, or have been present.

I'm not arguing that multiverses exist or existed.

I'm saying their mere possibility and their unknown nature, as well as things other than 'universes' MAY exist, and MAY have no beginning but are eternal, means 'god, or else something from nothing' are not the only two possibilities to rule in or out.

Exist means present or having been present in objective reality, where said presence is not dependent upon whether or not it is known to be present, or have been present.

Well okay, but I have to say this is a rather convoluted definition. It opens the door to questions regarding what you mean by "present/presence" and "objective reality." So we need to define those terms before we can even understand what you mean by "existing." Then you say "having been present" ...does that mean things exist when they no longer exist? Seems to be a contradiction in reason there. Then there is the question of "whether or not it is known to be" ...so things can exist even if we don't know they exist and have no evidence for their existence whatsoever and no way to understand them?

I am making a point with this exercise, and I realize it is a bit frustrating to you, but the point is important to this debate. It is very difficult to accurately pin down an acceptable definition of what "exist" means. In your definition, we have to rely on "objective reality" which is simply put, our perception of reality. Likewise, the term "presence" can objectively mean different things in our own reality. Therefore, our personal understanding of what does or does not "exist" is dependent upon our own rationalizations, our own comprehensions, our own objective reasoning. There is not a universal understanding here, it's ambiguous.

And this is why the question of God rages on. After thousands and thousands of years, humans contemplating and arguing, we are no closer to a universal understanding. Some believe God "exists" and others do not believe God "exists" and the beat goes on.

I'm saying their [other universes] mere possibility and their unknown nature, as well as things other than 'universes' MAY exist, and MAY have no beginning but are eternal, means 'god, or else something from nothing' are not the only two possibilities to rule in or out.

And I agree with this, which is why I corrected your assertion this was MY argument. I've never made that argument. You misread my comment to an Atheist who rejects the possibility of God and assumes something comes from nothing. You're actually making the same point I am making, there are other possibilities, including the existence of God. The notion that something came from nothing is not in accordance with science or physics in our universe because something can't come from nothing. Therefore, such a thing would be "magic" by any definition. There is probably a better explanation.

Now... I cannot speak for other universes that we don't even know exist, but THIS universe appears to not be "eternal" because it is in motion. We theorize it began with a big bang. Entropy is happening, so it appears order descends into chaos in our universe, which indicates again, our universe is not eternal. Perhaps other universes, if they exist, ARE eternal? Perhaps that is where Spiritual Nature resides? Again... POSSIBILITIES!

An atheist rejects god, they don't reject the multitude of other possibilities that you and I agreed may exist......so saying they 'assume something comes from nothing' would require a direct quote from an atheist saying that.......not just merely presuming its what they believe.

 

[Broncho4]

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.

Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed. That's one of the two ultimate options of origin: materiality or transcendent immateriality. And as you correctly say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand. What's the grounds for that? Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable.

The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back the veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it! That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!

But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away:

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.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​

While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache. I think I grasp what you are saying. [1] My question (for now) is on #4. Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God. Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...

Why should it give you a headache? It's clear and precise, unless, perhaps, you're not familiar with quantum physics or some of the other terms. #4 doesn't presuppose there is only one god; rather, it asserts the necessity of a supremely unparalleled Being of origin regardless how many "gods" might also being lurking in the transcendental realm of being. Bottom line: the idea of a spiritual origin ultimately goes to some form of sentience at the top of the heap. That's why all of the polytheistic religions of history have always had a big wheel at the top. But even if, objectively speaking, there existed a multitude of gods of equal standing who created the cosmos together, that becomes, collectively, the idea of God that universally exists in our minds for the spiritual option that cannot be logically eliminated. See how that works? Four holds and seven holds.

Are you familiar with the implication of the words "supremely unparalleled"? Also using the wording "a being" is singular. The implication is that there is only 1.

I get a headache because the way you speak is as if you are writing a book. It is needlessly complicated in a discussion forum. While I am unfamiliar with your background I can only hope that you are not a subject matter "expert" due to the glaring inconsistencies in your argument. So I have to assume that you are writing in this manner to try to add weight to your argument. Much like a peacock shows its feathers to show dominance.

Neither the peacocks feathers nor your use of complicated sentence structure and "word of the day" vocabulary, actually equate to dominance or expertise.

 

[Justin Davis]

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!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."

Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.

You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
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)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
(EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.

__________________________

I'm sorry. You must have missed this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/

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!



. . . 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!​

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


LOL!


So now you're telling us that you're an atheist again, right? Let me know when you make up your mind.

GT jumps from atheist to agnostic to agnostic to atheist depending on which way the wind is blowing against his latest evasion argument.

 

[G.T.]

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!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."

Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.

You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
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)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
(EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.

__________________________

I'm sorry. You must have missed this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/

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!



. . . 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!​

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


LOL!


So now you're telling us that you're an atheist again, right? Let me know when you make up your mind.

No, I'm telling you that it is not proven that we were creatED so god being defined as creatOR doesn't make him an axiom....UNTIL you prove existence is a creation.

Sorry its so difficult for you to differentiate between objective absolutes and your subjective opinion.

 

[G.T.]

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!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."

Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.

You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
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)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
(EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.

__________________________

I'm sorry. You must have missed this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/

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!



. . . 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!​

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


LOL!


So now you're telling us that you're an atheist again, right? Let me know when you make up your mind.

GT jumps from atheist to agnostic to agnostic to atheist depending on which way the wind is blowing against his latest evasion argument.

No, its that you bozos have reading comprehension issues.

 

[Boss]

Even this universe - some physicists believe MAY be eternal, and it expands and contracts. I forget the name of the theory but I can look it up if anyone cares.

Some astrophysicists once believed the universe might be cyclical in nature. That matter was tightly compressed into a 'singularity' and the big bang happened, and eventually the entire universe will contract to repeat the cycle.

However... and this is HUGE... within the past 30 years or so, we have discovered the universe is not only expanding but accelerating in the velocity of expansion. That detail simply nullifies any scientific consideration of a contracting universe. For this theory to work, the expansion would have to be slowing instead of accelerating, as you would expect to find with the velocity of anything which exploded. So now, they are even questioning whether or not there was ever a "big bang" to start the universe to begin with. If the universe is cyclical, it doesn't expand and contract.

There are also problems with the concept of "singularity" because all atoms require space for the defining electrons to orbit. So if all matter in the universe is tightly compressed and there is no space, the atoms can't exist... there is no space for their electrons. There has never been a logical way around this dichotomy so "singularity" has always been in question.

 

[Hollie]

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.

It's always easy to tell when the angry fundies are at a loss to defend their magical gawds and spirit realms: they slam the board with their irrelevant piffle.

If that's true then that's true about you in spades, for piffle is your middle name. Hollie Piffle Vomit.

Such is the level of discourse coming from fundie christian Madrassahs and from those who live and work in the sewers.