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

[G.T.]

Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.

You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.

Random question just out of pocket....

Have you ever practiced dreaming?

 

[Broncho4]

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

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

Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.

He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us. We hate not knowing everything. But the fact is, we don't. And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.

The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.

Anyways, it is all amazing. And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this. Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.

Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it? You schmuck. We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people. I can't believe you are still one of them. Time to evolve dummies.

The only thing wrong with Christianity are the Christians. I am by no means a bible thumper. I have no desire to defend the bible or any of it's teachings. I will say that whether he was real or not, the teachings of Jesus were as true in his day as they are now. Very few works of literature can stand the test of time like that.

I find it amazing that people can get caught up in political parties, sports franchises and the country they happened to be born in. None of these have singular or consistent ideals. But a group of people who believe in, if nothing else, one of the best men in history are "stupid & misled".

 

[Justin Davis]

They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.

I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.

I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.

I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.

I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.

Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.

That's why its an argument and not a conversation.

You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the lowlife tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'

Things go south.

Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."

Things go south.

If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.

Things go south.

Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.

Oh, so now you're pretending that you don't know that these are based on the assumption that the first two are true as a mater of practicality, which was made clear from the beginning, and you did agree with the first five on that basis earlier. So now you're changing your story again. Oh, so now you're pretending that you actually believe in antirealism when we all know you don't. And so now you're telling a new story about three but saying you can't prove you exist to anyone else which means you have nothing to say that matters right? Looks like your silly attempt to pretend that you don't know they're all true went south before you got started. And so now we don't have to take you seriously. Oh, where did he go? You disappeared, You were here just awhile ago. GT, where did you go? I can't hear you anymore.

 

[Justin Davis]

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

This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.

He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us. We hate not knowing everything. But the fact is, we don't. And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.

The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.

Anyways, it is all amazing. And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this. Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.

Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it? You schmuck. We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people. I can't believe you are still one of them. Time to evolve dummies.

And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .

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.

I found it interesting just how quickly "the five things" became "The seven things" when the former was dismantled as a fraud.

The remanufacture of this latest disaster of silliness suffers from the same viciously circular "reasoning", such as it is.

I find is funny that you still won't admit that you know these things are true and pretend not to understand why the other two were added, because the first five had to be understood first before adding the other two.

Number two is wrong. If it were Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, you'd be out before you even made $1000.

Why there is no god

Number 15 on all the reasons there is no god.

You don't believe that number two is wrong.

 

[G.T.]

They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.

I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.

I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.

I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.

I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.

Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.

That's why its an argument and not a conversation.

You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'

Things go south.

Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."

Things go south.

If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.

Things go south.

Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.

Oh, so now you're pretending that you don't know that these are based on the assumption that the first two are true as a mater of practicality, which was made clear from the beginning, and you did agree with the first five on that basis earlier. So now you're changing your story again. Oh, so now you're pretending that you actually believe in antirealism when we all know you don't. And so now you're telling a new story about three but saying you can't prove you exist to anyone else which means you have nothing to say that matters right? Looks like your silly attempt to pretend that you don't know they're all true went south before you got started. And so now we don't have to take you seriously. Oh, where did he go? You disappeared, You were here just awhile ago. GT, where did you go? I can't hear you anymore.

See how daft you are?

You can't decipher between belief and what's provable.

I never changed my belief that WE exist.

Not one, and not even in the post you just quoted.

Yet you quoted me saying I believe it, and in response said that I didn't.

You're dumber than a sack of potatoes. Good fuckin gawdz you're tedious.


But I notice you were unable to defend that mptag is an axiom. Gluck with that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.

Now you've gone all wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the herd-mentality.

In answer to your question. . . .

Yes. I am aware of that. So?

That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason: to do otherwise is what actually begs the question.

If I wrote gods you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you? Yes, of course, you'd have to. If not, why not? While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.

You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.

As I wrote elsewhere:

Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument: from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It is necessary to define/assert the construct of God in its objectively highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.

Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that (1) the objectively highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that (2) he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.​

That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.

In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.

I understood exactly what you were saying. I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God (depending on your definition of God). I think it is illogical and irresponsible to rule out the existence of something/someone who predates the universe. I require no admiration, agreement or sympathy for my beliefs.

Maybe you are unaware of how your thoughts read to a casual observer. "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:" This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning. It can also be stated that to participate in a discussion forum with rhetoric fit for a science forum will also lend itself to average people misunderstanding your intentions.

And neither do I because I'm not trying to prove anything but that which is objectively true about the issue. One cannot prove God's existence to another, but one can prove what is objectively and logically true about the pertinent evidence supporting the conclusion for God's existence.

Right. I understood you too. You said #4 was not true and, therefore #7 isn't true. But that's wrong because the standard is generic and always has been in logic. Polytheism and pantheism are not excluded, which means, now that you know that and why, you do agree that all seven are objectively true logically.

You must!

Look, these "Seven Things," which the atheists on this thread are merely pretending not to understand, assume that the first two are not illusions as a matter of practicality. They already know that. I already told them that. I just keep reposting it from time to time for the sake of others who have never thought about what's right in front of them and so that everybody can also see the kind of mental gymnastics some atheists engage in, how absurd they become the more they pretend not to see the obvious.

Anyone whose going to start out by asserting antirealism permits me to say: So nothing you have to say is real Goodbye. You're dismissed."

And we all know that these guys are materialists anyway.

These objective facts of human cognition about the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin are true logically. They are universally true for all of us, including the atheist, because of the bio-neurologically hardwired laws of organic/classical thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle.

I know several atheists who, of course, have no problem admitting that these things are logically true. "“Of course their true!" But, of course, these are atheists who have no problem with the idea that they might be wrong and that theism is in fact based on reason. They’re not the obnoxious sort. By the way, I'm a former atheist.

The obnoxious sort have been telling themselves and everybody else that theism is irrational all their lives without ever realizing that these "Seven Things" exist in our minds and are logically true. They've just never thought it through before So to now openly admit these logical truths to others. . . .

Young children, not fully developed intellectually, or persons who suffer from mental retardation or some kind of mental illness may not be able to follow. That's all that means. There's nothing controversial about that. There's no insult in that. That's just a simple fact of life. After about 12 or 13 most all kids can understand why these things are objectively true logically once they're explained to them properly. What parent in their right mind would not want their children to be able to think these things true and grasp them. They're objectively true! What are some atheists doing to the minds of their children, screwing up their ability to think coherently? What the hell?

Why would I assume that persons who don't fall into one of those categories are unable to see that these thing are logically true? That’s what would be insulting. So I'm just conceding up front for the sake of objectivity that there are obvious exceptions to this rule. It's no big deal. LOL!

Usually, the hardest one to understand for most is not #4, but #6.

Also, the issue does involve current science and some fairly complex rational and mathematical issues with regard to #4. The basic fact of #4 is easy. The details about it are not so easy because now you get into science and mathematics to understand what more can be or not be objectively asserted about divine attribution.

Excuse me, but there are people on this thread telling us that we can't objectively determine anything more about #4, and that is not true. Moreover, the additional, objectively derived information seals the deal with regard to the power of the proofs for God's existence.

Finally, the reason some have come on this thread with opinions that the classical proofs don't hold up, as the OP wrongfully claims, goes to the fact that these people do not know what logic and science are ontologically and, therefore, do not know what they're talking about.

 

[DriftingSand]

Intelligence is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the result of its existence.
Love is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the fruits of its existence.
Wind is not seen by the naked eye but we know it exists when we feel its force.
Electricity isn't seen by the naked eye but the result of its power is known to all.

There are many forces that aren't seen but exist.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.

I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.

I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.

I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.

I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.

Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.

That's why its an argument and not a conversation.

You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'

Things go south.

Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."

Things go south.

If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.

Things go south.

Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.

Oh, so now you're pretending that you don't know that these are based on the assumption that the first two are true as a mater of practicality, which was made clear from the beginning, and you did agree with the first five on that basis earlier. So now you're changing your story again. Oh, so now you're pretending that you actually believe in antirealism when we all know you don't. And so now you're telling a new story about three but saying you can't prove you exist to anyone else which means you have nothing to say that matters right? Looks like your silly attempt to pretend that you don't know they're all true went south before you got started. And so now we don't have to take you seriously. Oh, where did he go? You disappeared, You were here just awhile ago. GT, where did you go? I can't hear you anymore.

See how daft you are?

You can't decipher between belief and what's provable.

I never changed my belief that WE exist.

Not one, and not even in the post you just quoted.

Yet you quoted me saying I believe it, and in response said that I didn't.

You're dumber than a sack of potatoes. Good fuckin gawdz you're tedious.


But I notice you were unable to defend that mptag is an axiom. Gluck with that.

I see that you're getting increasingly absurd is what I see, calling things that are objectively true for all subjective. That's something new. LOL!

And before we did have you down for five of them. It's funny how after number #6 was added things changed, but then that's the clincher that proves that the theist remains logically consistent while the atheist goes off into the world of paradox, where logic goes into shape-shifting mode. Wait! I keep forgetting. You're an agnostic . . . when you're not being atheist, or you're an atheist . . . when you're not being an agnostic. It's hard to keep, too much shape-shifting going on.

Explain to us again how it's possible for a finite mind to logically think/say that "God (the Creator) doesn't exist" without actually thinking/saying, on the fact it, that the finite mind would not exist if that were the case, or, for that matter, nothing would exist at all. You do exist, don't you?

Oh, that's right, you just said that you do. LOL! You're really are a riot, a rollercoaster riot.

 

[Justin Davis]

They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.

I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.

I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.

I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.

I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.

Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.

That's why its an argument and not a conversation.

You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'

Things go south.

Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."

Things go south.

If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.

Things go south.

Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.

Oh, so now you're pretending that you don't know that these are based on the assumption that the first two are true as a mater of practicality, which was made clear from the beginning, and you did agree with the first five on that basis earlier. So now you're changing your story again. Oh, so now you're pretending that you actually believe in antirealism when we all know you don't. And so now you're telling a new story about three but saying you can't prove you exist to anyone else which means you have nothing to say that matters right? Looks like your silly attempt to pretend that you don't know they're all true went south before you got started. And so now we don't have to take you seriously. Oh, where did he go? You disappeared, You were here just awhile ago. GT, where did you go? I can't hear you anymore.

See how daft you are?

You can't decipher between belief and what's provable.

I never changed my belief that WE exist.

Not one, and not even in the post you just quoted.

Yet you quoted me saying I believe it, and in response said that I didn't.

You're dumber than a sack of potatoes. Good fuckin gawdz you're tedious.


But I notice you were unable to defend that mptag is an axiom. Gluck with that.

I see that you're getting increasingly absurd is what I see, calling things that are objectively true for all subjective. That's something new. LOL!

And before we did have you down for five of them. It's funny how after number #6 was added things changed, but then that's the clincher that proves that the theist remains logically consistent while the atheist goes off into the world of paradox, where logic goes into shape-shifting mode. Wait! I keep forgetting. You're an agnostic . . . when you're not being atheist, or you're an atheist . . . when you're not being an agnostic. It's hard to keep, too much shape-shifting going on.

Explain to us again how it's possible for a finite mind to logically think/say that "God (the Creator) doesn't exist" without actually thinking/saying, on the fact it, that the finite mind would not exist if that were the case, or, for that matter, nothing would exist at all. You do exist, don't you?

Oh, that's right, you just said that you do. LOL! You're really are a riot, a rollercoaster riot.

He keeps morphing.

 

[G.T.]

Its the dip duck dodge brothers

 

[G.T.]

I have not been inconsistent whatsoever.

And what's sad, is that these charlatans think they're serious thinkers

I agreed to 'the five' in one of the umpteen ways you worded them.

Do I need to show you how they've changed? For instance, the one that morphed into "god is bio mechanically hardwired into our brains."

Can one of you dishonest sneaky ***** quote me EVER agreeing to that?

You guys ought to be ******* ashamed of yourselves, and you cheerlead at that.

You're little boys. This is a mans world, grow the **** up.

 

[Justin Davis]

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

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

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

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

This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.

He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us. We hate not knowing everything. But the fact is, we don't. And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.

The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.

Anyways, it is all amazing. And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this. Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.

Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it? You schmuck. We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people. I can't believe you are still one of them. Time to evolve dummies.

And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .

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.

I found it interesting just how quickly "the five things" became "The seven things" when the former was dismantled as a fraud.

The remanufacture of this latest disaster of silliness suffers from the same viciously circular "reasoning", such as it is.

And sometimes their lists get smaller. Remember when lightening and famine were because the gods were angry? Today gods don't do anything to us anymore. We can't point to one thing and say, "that was god". Yet they still believe this god character exists.

Keeping telling yourself these things; maybe they're will come true some day. Not.

I used a semicolon, but I morph.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I have not been inconsistent whatsoever.

And what's sad, is that these charlatans think they're serious thinkers

I agreed to 'the five' in one of the umpteen ways you worded them.

Do I need to show you how they've changed? For instance, the one that morphed into "god is bio mechanically hardwired into our brains."

Can one of you dishonest sneaky ***** quote me EVER agreeing to that?

You guys ought to be ******* ashamed of yourselves, and you cheerlead at that.

You're little boys. This is a mans world, grow the **** up.

So what's wrong with them now? They're basically the same. One more was all that was really added for obvious reasons after the first five were understood. Number seven just summarizes.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I actually do understand the problem with you understanding spiritual nature and I've tried to explain it to others. It's fundamentally rooted in your understanding of what "exists" in your own objective reality. Spiritual nature is no more "supernatural" than physical nature, you just refuse to acknowledge it exists as part of nature. But refusing to acknowledge something doesn't make it go away and not exist.
.

 

[Justin Davis]

I have not been inconsistent whatsoever.

And what's sad, is that these charlatans think they're serious thinkers

I agreed to 'the five' in one of the umpteen ways you worded them.

Do I need to show you how they've changed? For instance, the one that morphed into "god is bio mechanically hardwired into our brains."

Can one of you dishonest sneaky ***** quote me EVER agreeing to that?

You guys ought to be ******* ashamed of yourselves, and you cheerlead at that.

You're little boys. This is a mans world, grow the **** up.

So what's wrong with them now? They're basically the same. One more was all that was really added for obvious reasons after the first five were understood. Number seven just summarizes.

It's a morph thing.

 

[Hollie]

They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.

I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.

I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.

I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.

I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.

Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.

That's why its an argument and not a conversation.

You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'

Things go south.

Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."

Things go south.

If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.

Things go south.

Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.

Oh, so now you're pretending that you don't know that these are based on the assumption that the first two are true as a mater of practicality, which was made clear from the beginning, and you did agree with the first five on that basis earlier. So now you're changing your story again. Oh, so now you're pretending that you actually believe in antirealism when we all know you don't. And so now you're telling a new story about three but saying you can't prove you exist to anyone else which means you have nothing to say that matters right? Looks like your silly attempt to pretend that you don't know they're all true went south before you got started. And so now we don't have to take you seriously. Oh, where did he go? You disappeared, You were here just awhile ago. GT, where did you go? I can't hear you anymore.

See how daft you are?

You can't decipher between belief and what's provable.

I never changed my belief that WE exist.

Not one, and not even in the post you just quoted.

Yet you quoted me saying I believe it, and in response said that I didn't.

You're dumber than a sack of potatoes. Good fuckin gawdz you're tedious.


But I notice you were unable to defend that mptag is an axiom. Gluck with that.

I see that you're getting increasingly absurd is what I see, calling things that are objectively true for all subjective. That's something new. LOL!

And before we did have you down for five of them. It's funny how after number #6 was added things changed, but then that's the clincher that proves that the theist remains logically consistent while the atheist goes off into the world of paradox, where logic goes into shape-shifting mode. Wait! I keep forgetting. You're an agnostic . . . when you're not being atheist, or you're an atheist . . . when you're not being an agnostic. It's hard to keep, too much shape-shifting going on.

Explain to us again how it's possible for a finite mind to logically think/say that "God (the Creator) doesn't exist" without actually thinking/saying, on the fact it, that the finite mind would not exist if that were the case, or, for that matter, nothing would exist at all. You do exist, don't you?

Oh, that's right, you just said that you do. LOL! You're really are a riot, a rollercoaster riot.

It's funny how you charlatans required the need to remanufacture your silly " five things" and reinvent that disaster into the even sillier "seven things".

Oh, That's right, you make up this nonsense as you go along LOL!

 

[Hollie]

Intelligence is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the result of its existence.
Love is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the fruits of its existence.
Wind is not seen by the naked eye but we know it exists when we feel its force.
Electricity isn't seen by the naked eye but the result of its power is known to all.

There are many forces that aren't seen but exist.

You forgot to add supernaturalism and gawds inhabiting magic spirit realms.

 

[Justin Davis]

They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.

I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.

I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.

I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.

I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.

Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.

That's why its an argument and not a conversation.

You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'

Things go south.

Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."

Things go south.

If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.

Things go south.

Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.

Oh, so now you're pretending that you don't know that these are based on the assumption that the first two are true as a mater of practicality, which was made clear from the beginning, and you did agree with the first five on that basis earlier. So now you're changing your story again. Oh, so now you're pretending that you actually believe in antirealism when we all know you don't. And so now you're telling a new story about three but saying you can't prove you exist to anyone else which means you have nothing to say that matters right? Looks like your silly attempt to pretend that you don't know they're all true went south before you got started. And so now we don't have to take you seriously. Oh, where did he go? You disappeared, You were here just awhile ago. GT, where did you go? I can't hear you anymore.

See how daft you are?

You can't decipher between belief and what's provable.

I never changed my belief that WE exist.

Not one, and not even in the post you just quoted.

Yet you quoted me saying I believe it, and in response said that I didn't.

You're dumber than a sack of potatoes. Good fuckin gawdz you're tedious.


But I notice you were unable to defend that mptag is an axiom. Gluck with that.

I see that you're getting increasingly absurd is what I see, calling things that are objectively true for all subjective. That's something new. LOL!

And before we did have you down for five of them. It's funny how after number #6 was added things changed, but then that's the clincher that proves that the theist remains logically consistent while the atheist goes off into the world of paradox, where logic goes into shape-shifting mode. Wait! I keep forgetting. You're an agnostic . . . when you're not being atheist, or you're an atheist . . . when you're not being an agnostic. It's hard to keep, too much shape-shifting going on.

Explain to us again how it's possible for a finite mind to logically think/say that "God (the Creator) doesn't exist" without actually thinking/saying, on the fact it, that the finite mind would not exist if that were the case, or, for that matter, nothing would exist at all. You do exist, don't you?

Oh, that's right, you just said that you do. LOL! You're really are a riot, a rollercoaster riot.

It's funny how you charlatans required the need to remanufacture your silly " five things" and reinvent that disaster into the even sillier "seven things".

Oh, That's right, you make up this nonsense as you go along LOL!

I'm sorry, Hollie, but I'm just going to have to cut you off, drop you like a bad habit, like a sack of potatoes.

 

[Hollie]

They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.

I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.

I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.

I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.

I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.

Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.

That's why its an argument and not a conversation.

You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'

Things go south.

Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."

Things go south.

If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.

Things go south.

Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.

Oh, so now you're pretending that you don't know that these are based on the assumption that the first two are true as a mater of practicality, which was made clear from the beginning, and you did agree with the first five on that basis earlier. So now you're changing your story again. Oh, so now you're pretending that you actually believe in antirealism when we all know you don't. And so now you're telling a new story about three but saying you can't prove you exist to anyone else which means you have nothing to say that matters right? Looks like your silly attempt to pretend that you don't know they're all true went south before you got started. And so now we don't have to take you seriously. Oh, where did he go? You disappeared, You were here just awhile ago. GT, where did you go? I can't hear you anymore.

See how daft you are?

You can't decipher between belief and what's provable.

I never changed my belief that WE exist.

Not one, and not even in the post you just quoted.

Yet you quoted me saying I believe it, and in response said that I didn't.

You're dumber than a sack of potatoes. Good fuckin gawdz you're tedious.


But I notice you were unable to defend that mptag is an axiom. Gluck with that.

I see that you're getting increasingly absurd is what I see, calling things that are objectively true for all subjective. That's something new. LOL!

And before we did have you down for five of them. It's funny how after number #6 was added things changed, but then that's the clincher that proves that the theist remains logically consistent while the atheist goes off into the world of paradox, where logic goes into shape-shifting mode. Wait! I keep forgetting. You're an agnostic . . . when you're not being atheist, or you're an atheist . . . when you're not being an agnostic. It's hard to keep, too much shape-shifting going on.

Explain to us again how it's possible for a finite mind to logically think/say that "God (the Creator) doesn't exist" without actually thinking/saying, on the fact it, that the finite mind would not exist if that were the case, or, for that matter, nothing would exist at all. You do exist, don't you?

Oh, that's right, you just said that you do. LOL! You're really are a riot, a rollercoaster riot.

It's funny how you charlatans required the need to remanufacture your silly " five things" and reinvent that disaster into the even sillier "seven things".

Oh, That's right, you make up this nonsense as you go along LOL!

I'm sorry, Hollie, but I'm just going to have to cut you off, drop you like a bad habit, like a sack of potatoes.

Runnin' scared, eh?

Whack a fundie. It's what the gawds want.

 

[G.T.]

I have not been inconsistent whatsoever.

And what's sad, is that these charlatans think they're serious thinkers

I agreed to 'the five' in one of the umpteen ways you worded them.

Do I need to show you how they've changed? For instance, the one that morphed into "god is bio mechanically hardwired into our brains."

Can one of you dishonest sneaky ***** quote me EVER agreeing to that?

You guys ought to be ******* ashamed of yourselves, and you cheerlead at that.

You're little boys. This is a mans world, grow the **** up.

So what's wrong with them now? They're basically the same. One more was all that was really added for obvious reasons after the first five were understood. Number seven just summarizes.

Read them as first presented. The first five.

Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.

See absolutely no differences?


Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.

Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........

to now......

God is "biomechanically hardwired."




And that's ME changing my views?


My views have remained steadfast.


I believe that we exist.

I believe the cosmos exist.

Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.

Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them


That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.

I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.