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

[Hollie]

If you say so, but remember, you put yourself down for "The Seven Things" as (1) you conceded their necessity with the logic of your very own words in which (2) you necessarily stated that God exists! via the incontrovertibly positive proof under the very same organic laws of logic that (3) you necessarily presupposed in order to assert your failed attempt to refute them. Given that all of this is true, you're claiming that the contradictorily paradoxical world of atheism is bigger than the logically consistent world of theism. That's weird.

The thing you have to remember with silly boob is, he continually contradicts himself. I have literally seen him do this within the same paragraph. He calls himself an "agnostic atheist" because he believes that God is totally made up bullshit while also believing that he doesn't really know if God exists but it's possible. He doesn't believe in anything spiritual, that's all in our heads... but he believes in Karma.

You'll notice this most of the time when he posts first person, but we rarely get to see it because he so often copies and pastes from his arsenal of atheist blogs.

Yeah. He's does have quite an arsenal of the stuff all which necessarily concedes "The Seven Things"!

Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?

Based on the various assertions you've made on this thread about the constituents of material existence and about the idea of God, we have you down for five of them, emphatically; and, by the necessity of logical extension, we have you down for the other two, #6 and #7, implicitly. Only, you ain't packin' a full deck, so we also have you down for you-know-what and giggles.

You actually have nothing of the kind. You do have an issue with contingent reality and you have problems with inventions of what you hoped others have written as opposed to what they actually did write.

 

[Hollie]

Nope, but the pope just said that the big bang theory is now acceptable to Catholics. Funny thing about science. It says that matter is made up of 99% nothing and the remaining percent is questionable, so life and everything we know is a dance of nothingness...I don't know were to go with this.

Well, first of all the Big Bang theory was never problematical for theism. In fact, it poses more problems for atheism than steady state theory did. And it not true that 99% of the universe's mass is nothingness. It's not nothingness. The rest is invisible, dark matter and dark energy.,

99 of the Mass of the Visible Universe Not Explained by CERN s Discovery of Higgs Boson

Well, first of all, the Big Bang is a huge problem for your Christian fundamentalists. The very idea of a universe that is billions of years old is in direct contradiction to your notion of a 6,000 year old planet.

 

[MaryL]

Jesus..Religion is faith based, science is based on observable facts. Science gave us the internet. Religion, prayer. If I post here , I am not sure anyone reads this or if it matters. But if I pray, I get equally ambiguous nothings in reply. But, if you add a acid to a base, you get the same old same old. 2+2 still equals 4.Pray to god that your cancer ridden father might be cured, forget about it. He dies, game over. Nature doesn't care about prayer. Were is God?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Junk science.

Bullring challenge!

I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
ie VERIFIED through science and that
fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
steps in effective spiritual healing.

M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.

Shame on you, really.

You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.

When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.

Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen. How do you know that? You don't know that. Assuming God does exist outside the positive proof of His existence in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.

What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.

I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Justified true belief/knowledge is not merely bottomed on scientific theory, but also on the philosophical and mathematical maxims of the organic laws of thought, which serve as the epistemological and ontological foundation for science and scientific methodology.

So why do you keep making absolute declarations in the name of science about spiritual matters? That's weird.

Take the absurdity that faith, for example, in and of itself, has anything whatsoever to do with the construct of justified true belief/knowledge. That's ridiculous, absurd, risible, poppycock, hooey, pseudoscientific and -philosophical claptrap, la-la, discarded underwear, the newspaper your dog relieves himself on, a wet, snot-stained hanky.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Jesus..Religion is faith based, science is based on observable facts. Science gave us the internet. Religion, prayer. If I post here , I am not sure anyone reads this or if it matters. But if I pray, I get equally ambiguous nothings in reply. But, if you add a acid to a base, you get the same old same old. 2+2 still equals 4.Pray to god that your cancer ridden father might be cured, forget about it. He dies, game over. Nature doesn't care about prayer. Were is God?

Science is not based on observable facts and any religious belief worth having is not based on faith, but reason, with being the substance of affirmation.
Science is based on one metaphysical presupposition of naturalism or another, a methodology of knowledge that is used to make empirically verifiable/falsifiable inferences about the material realm of being.

 

[Hollie]

Jesus..Religion is faith based, science is based on observable facts. Science gave us the internet. Religion, prayer. If I post here , I am not sure anyone reads this or if it matters. But if I pray, I get equally ambiguous nothings in reply. But, if you add a acid to a base, you get the same old same old. 2+2 still equals 4.Pray to god that your cancer ridden father might be cured, forget about it. He dies, game over. Nature doesn't care about prayer. Were is God?

Science is not based on observable facts and any religious belief worth having is not based on faith, but reason, with being the substance of affirmation.
Science is based on one metaphysical presupposition of naturalism or another, a methodology of knowledge that is used to make empirically verifiable/falsifiable inferences about the material realm of being.

You got that confused, pointless drivel from Harun Yahya, right?

 

[Mr. H.]

Jesus..Religion is faith based, science is based on observable facts. Science gave us the internet. Religion, prayer. If I post here , I am not sure anyone reads this or if it matters. But if I pray, I get equally ambiguous nothings in reply. But, if you add a acid to a base, you get the same old same old. 2+2 still equals 4.Pray to god that your cancer ridden father might be cured, forget about it. He dies, game over. Nature doesn't care about prayer. Were is God?

Al Gore gives us the internet.

Get your facts straight.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Boss!

I think your down for all of "The Seven Things"; however, you hold that your belief that these things are true logically is not the same thing as knowing these things to be true. It's that a fair statement?

That's pretty much it. I like your presentation and I don't disagree. I am pretty sure some ancient philosopher has articulated it much better than I can, but we can't ever 'know' things, we can only believe that we know things.

Well, I see that I didn't say it very well either, actually. Sort dashed that off.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Junk science.

Bullring challenge!

I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
ie VERIFIED through science and that
fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
steps in effective spiritual healing.

M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.

Shame on you, really.

You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.

When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.

Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen. How do you know that? You don't know that. Assuming God does exist outside the positive proof of His existence in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.

What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.

I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

OK but just because something hasn't been demonstrated yet by science
is no reason to call someone stupid!

Edison had to have FAITH that a light bulb could be invented
or he would not search for the right combination that PROVED it could be.

Same with finding cures for cancer, leprosy, Ebola, etc.

Why is it STUPID to have faith that a solution can be found
in advance of Science proving it?

Seelybobo's comment about faith is false anyway. That's not part of his quote. That's him talking nonsense. The construct of justified true belief/knowledge has no bearing on faith in general, let alone any given faith based on justified true belief/knowledge.

This construct strictly applies to established scientific theories, which are still subject to falsification, and to the philosophical and mathematical maxims of human cognition and the well-founded postulates and theorems thereof. We necessarily put our faith in any number of things in order to function and achieve, including the seemingly cogent constituents of justified true belief/knowledge, and we know this or at least hold this to be true based on the laws of organic thought. That's why you really need to seriously consider the foundation I gave you for the construct of spiritual healing. Stick to the formal terms and their imperatives and you have a sold foundation, logically and scientifically.

 

[BreezeWood]

Jesus..Religion is faith based, science is based on observable facts. Science gave us the internet. Religion, prayer. If I post here , I am not sure anyone reads this or if it matters. But if I pray, I get equally ambiguous nothings in reply. But, if you add a acid to a base, you get the same old same old. 2+2 still equals 4.Pray to god that your cancer ridden father might be cured, forget about it. He dies, game over. Nature doesn't care about prayer. Were is God?

.
if you are praying, you are not living.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/)


.

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


the question is not asked as a definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...


2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!

yes.

Okay, so we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things."

First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term God entails. This objection is silly. By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is God the Creator! Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist: .

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

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

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

Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!

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

Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, 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 idea 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. One does not start with arbitrary notions about what God might be like in terms less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution so that the only defensible premise is unjustifiably precluded from the jump, so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensible premise.

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

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

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

The only reason that logic, not science, allows for this hypothesis in science is because the logical principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if organic logic didn't permit it. --M.D. Rawlings​

For those of you who might still have any lingering doubts about this, for those under the impression, like the OP, no doubt, that either propositional logic or science proceeds from notions that are conceivable, yet rationally and experientially absurd, rather than from demonstrably established, justified true belief/knowledge, see this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?

I have no idea what 'the seven things are'... but I do know that whatever your beef is with 'em, you conceded that exchange through your failure to either refute or discredit the point.

The refutation of the phony seven things has been done repeatedly. Your failure is not taking the time or effort to read through more than a few pages of the thread.

Nah. You guys haven't refuted any of them. No one can. GT's final objection, the only one he had left, was refuted here as well. Look, no one escapes "The Seven Things." There have been some who failed to think them through and imagined faults that weren't there, but I have refuted them all. Better yet, the laws of human thought refute all comers.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

then why are you even participating in this thread ? -

to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...

and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.

.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.

life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.

.

So we don't exist?

mdr: So we don't exist?

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


the question is not to definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...


2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!

yes,


for this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!

in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.

proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist: existence may not have been created = / = the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.

only the Everlasting is certain - not God.

.

And so one can define God to be = the Everlasting, the Almighty
and this still speaks to "agreeing that God = something that exists)

no proof or argument needed
if there is already agreement God exists

That's what some keep saying, but there are profoundly important things revealed in "The Seven Things" about human logic and what we may know about what God must be like, assuming "The Seven Things" hold outside the logic of our minds. You don't just brush that aside given the importance of the issue.

 

[G.T.]

Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?

I have no idea what 'the seven things are'... but I do know that whatever your beef is with 'em, you conceded that exchange through your failure to either refute or discredit the point.

The refutation of the phony seven things has been done repeatedly. Your failure is not taking the time or effort to read through more than a few pages of the thread.

Nah. You guys haven't refuted any of them. No one can. GT's final objection, the only one he had left, was refuted here as well. Look, no one escapes "The Seven Things." There have been some who failed to think them through and imagined faults that weren't there, but I have refuted them all. Better yet, the laws of human thought refute all comers.

you failed to refute a single one of my objections.


you skip it and then you and your boy toy go on an ad hom retreat.

you have not substantively refuted a single damn objection.

Presupper in 3 d.

Dip, duck dodge.

Paste:

In logic, you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.

The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:

1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'




Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have not been ruled out and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.




I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.

 

[amrchaos]

“A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
― Rabindranath Tagore

Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.

You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
"Oh, okay honey. "
"Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
"Umm, never mind."

I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.

Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.

The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.

I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.

Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!

If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave. All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.

What is truth in such a situation? What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.

Understand, it is not just logic that fails here. Your intuition will fail as well!!

I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!

It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.

It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.

I think you are confusing logic with intuition. Intuition is the key to forming a premise without enough observation.--for instance, the Earth was flat was intuitive.

Logic is the process of going from one premise to another. For instance, if we travel around the flat Earth, we would fall.

Another intuitive premise is that there is a rain god. Another intuitive premise is that if you please this rain god, he would send rain. Then the logical argument leads to arrangements such as dancing to please the rain god.

Note: All the examples you used started with a faulty premise. It can leads to faulty conclusion. These faulty premises did not come abut due to logic failing, they came about due to our intuition failing.

I never said that logic failed. I said our perceptions of logic failed. You're saying our perceptions of logic are intuitive, and I have no argument with that.

If we include "perceiving illogical arguments as true" as part of that perception.

If you go back and take a look at how some of these assumptions were form, you will also note that there are several logical fallacies involved in forming both the assumptions and providing reason to form a conclusion.

Why we do this is simple, IF we do not risk making a mistake, we will not get anywhere. The act of associating things we think we understand to new things is a normal process--However, there is a risk of a logical fallacy in doing this in itself!

The logical fallacy of equivocation and the logical fallacy of over-generalization are usually the main problems. That is why you need some method to verify if the assumption is correct.

However, this is the underling problem of perception itself--how do we know what we sense exist, or is true? Apparently we commit a potential fallacy by guessing an association. That is not logical, but our intuition tell us to ignore this.

So our perception of "correctly processed logical arguments forming a false assumption or conclusion" is not the problem. The problem is the perception of accepting potentially faulty assumptions as true without recognizing the logical pitfalls of doing this. That is an intuitive process!

 

[Justin Davis]

I don't dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.

I think our ability to understand things is equal, but our perception of understanding differs. We have different perceptions because we have different perspectives. Our ability to rationalize or be objective stems from our perceptions. We don't all see the glass half full, some see it half empty, and some may not even see the glass at all, while still others may see a totally full glass.

We hinge our faith in what we believe on words like objective, reasoned, logical, axiomatic, because these help bolster our faith in what we believe as truth. At the most elementary level, everything we claim to know as truth requires faith. Ironically, this may be the greatest proof for God.

You see that's the kind of things I was telling Rawlings. I agree with all of this. That's why I couldn't figure out why you got mad at me because the only thing I don't agree with is the idea that we can't know truth. I believe we can because we can trust in the laws of human thought as real knowledge because they're the same for everyone, so they must come from God. People just let all this other stuff get in the way of being objective about things, and also we can't trust what a lot of the atheists are saying because they're not honest with us. The reality is that most of them do see the seven things and we can tell from the things they've said.

 

[sealybobo]

One formulation of the Atheist's Wager suggests that one should live a good life without religion, since Martin writes that a loving and kind god would reward good deeds, and if no gods exist, a good person will leave behind a positive legacy. The second formulation suggests that, instead of rewarding belief as in Pascal's wager, a god may reward disbelief, in which case one would risk losing infinite happiness by believing in a god unjustly, rather than disbelieving justly.

1. First of all why can't you both BELIEVE in higher good AND do higher good in this lifetime?
Why can't you do both, and leave it Unconditional either way.

it is just as "conditioned or selfish" to do "good" as a condition that God exists
or as a condition that God does not exist. Why not do good for the sake of God which is the meaning
of God = unconditional love. Love for lovesake is the whole point anyway, either way!

2. Secondly "God rewarding" is synonymous/consistent
with cause and effect, or good intention/actions leading to good results.

The issue is to have good intent to begin with.
Good will begets good will.
Ill will begets ill will.

This does not require faith in a personified God to understand.
This is natural law which God represents, regardless if someone uses that symbolism or not.

it is STILL true that
Forgiveness ==> allows h ealing and correction to improve, build and destroy relations
Unforgivness/ill will ==> blocks and destroys

3. Sealybobo as long as you believe in general
that good intent tends toward good actions and results
and bad intent tends toward bad things going wrong,
that is basically the same law of good influence vs. bad influence.

When you get to more advanced levels, instead of
labeling things "good or bad" you learn how Forgiveness
corrects things that were even bad.

How we ALLOW the good to overcome and replace the bad
is why it is important to understand the spiritual process.

It does not matter if we describe this using a personified God
or we just talk about how the process works anyway.

God is not about imposing a condition; that's the religion
part that the Protestant movement challenged with the Reformation.

The point was salvation from hell/suffering
was based on faith in forgiving the past so we can receive.

It is NOT about "dictating some magic words or ritual" to be saved.
That would be a condition and God's grace would not be free.

The only step is agreeing to give permission
and that is why we have to CHOOSE to forgive
and CHOOSE to get go of problems before receiving a solution.

The key is really Forgiveness, and then all else follows
once we understand we change things by forigving and letting go.

4. Yes BTW I do believe in general the script in life is
written to get to a happy ending. I can't know all the ups and downs
because I'm supposed to learn from those like everyone else.
But in general things are heading toward truth peace and justice for all people
as one spiritual family. And all the conversations we have are helping prepare
us by resolving issues from the past so we can build better relations and society
for future generations that will finish teh work we don't complete in our lifetimes.
We do the most we can with what we have in life and inherit some things
from previous generations and leave some things to future generations.
But the general learning curve is to break free from negative patterns, learn from past mistakes
isntead of repeating them, and start investing in positive solutions, process and patterns that work better in the present and are more sustainable for the future.

1. I don't think the meaning of love is god or the meaning of god is love. What it all boils down to is does this god character exist and is it necessary or just confusing. Because you could just explain love as an emotion or in scientific or physical terms and we'd save a lot of time if you didn't finish each sentence with praise god. Then we go WHO? and then you try to explain and we have a whole bunch of questions that you can't answer and then we get off the subject of LOVE.

2. I don't argue that good begets good and bad bad. Agreed.

3. So a good person who doesn't believe in god doesn't go to hell? Simple yes or no will do.

4. I often think, what if I fixed all the things that are wrong in my life. Could I re invent myself? Do you know for years I believed that my church was the only true church. Like all the other sects, they all offer something a little different so that their members can feel special. Born agains, Jehovas, Mormons, Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Protestants, Greek Orthodox, Chaldean, etc. Then it dawned on me mine is made up too. But I still love the community, people, priests. I would NEVER tell them they are swallowing a lie. They'll have to figure that out on their own. I'm only on USMB talking about it because if you come here to debate it, you are asking for our honest thoughts, correct? So some of us may be blunt debating you guys, but that's better than burning us at the stake or ostrasizing us for not believing your way. I know Kim Jung Il would kill a christian, but he doesn't represent atheists.

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” – Steven Weinberg

Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.

Religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists are generally more peaceful than otherwise. Compare America where we have a lot of atheists and agnistics to the Middle East where everyone believes in God. Just not your god. Also consider how many of us liberal atheists pro science people are anti war vs the Christians who want to "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran". Riddle me that.

 

[Justin Davis]

I didn't know one atheist growing up. No one questioned god. Not out loud anyways.

Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently. Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists. There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God. And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.

Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?

From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.

Without God from whence sprouts a moral code? In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong? In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake? If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost? Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.

You should be answering those questions on your own.


They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.

They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary. That's DS's point.

 

[sealybobo]

Junk science.

Bullring challenge!

I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
ie VERIFIED through science and that
fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
steps in effective spiritual healing.

M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.

Shame on you, really.

You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.

When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.

Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen. How do you know that? You don't know that. Assuming God does exist outside the positive proof of His existence in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.

What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.

I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Justified true belief/knowledge is not merely bottomed on scientific theory, but also on the philosophical and mathematical maxims of the organic laws of thought, which serve as the epistemological and ontological foundation for science and scientific methodology.

So why do you keep making absolute declarations in the name of science about spiritual matters? That's weird.

Take the absurdity that faith, for example, in and of itself, has anything whatsoever to do with the construct of justified true belief/knowledge. That's ridiculous, absurd, risible, poppycock, hooey, pseudoscientific and -philosophical claptrap, la-la, discarded underwear, the newspaper your dog relieves himself on, a wet, snot-stained hanky.

Are you old enough to remember the character Cliff Clavin on Cheers? He was a mailman who talked a lot, stated a lot of irrelevant facts, knew a lot about nothing basically. I can imitate him perfectly. Starts with a high pitch whiny DER A. Anyways, when I read your replies I hear his voice. LOL.

And I agree. Faith has nothing to do with justified true belief/knowledge.

“I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, I think it’s much more interesting that way … I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything. I might think about it a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go to something else. It doesn’t frighten me.” – Richard Feynman

Take his advice and ponder these things. Lots of problems with your theories. Where to begin....

When most atheists say “God does not exist” they are generally speaking in the same manner as when people say “Leprechauns/Santa Claus/Fairies/Unicorns don’t exist” – those things do not appear exist within contextual reality in which we find ourselves but, importantly, the statement is not necessarily an absolute one.

There are, however, gnostic atheists who are certain no god exists and they generally point to logical problems that would arise from said god’s existence or evidence this universe is inconsistent with a god, for example:

• Infinite Regression
• Argument from Poor Design
• The Atheist’s Wager
• Non-belief Paradox
• Omnipotence Paradox
• Free Will Paradox
• Argument from locality
• Argument from Non-reason
• Argument from incompatible properties
• Fate of the Unlearned
• Problem of Evil and Problem of Hell
  
  

 

[sealybobo]

Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently. Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists. There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God. And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.

Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?

From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.

Without God from whence sprouts a moral code? In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong? In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake? If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost? Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.

You should be answering those questions on your own.


They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.

They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary. That's DS's point.

That's awfully close minded.