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

[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.

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 14 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way and then simply disappeared?

 

[Justin Davis]

The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.

For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance.

If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.

Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.

Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.

And that’s the part I meant before when talking to you and Boss about it, but Boss got mad at me when I sort of agreed with him. That's the part he's saying that's right. I don't think he understood that I agreed with him on that level.

You can't do this with everyone, so don't say "universal" right? Some people can't see everything other people see and that's also true the other way around. People really advanced in mathematics can see a lot more than others, so it's not universal at that level. People have to take the word of someone. If they trust him they might believe what he's saying is okay, but really smart atheists are saying other things. The person is going to believe the guy who represents his bias. That's human nature, and that's the part you have to remember. But if you say it's objective that leaves things open in a universal sort of way without putting people off. That's what I was saying. But also I don’t believe like that physicist believes that we can ever read all of God's language in the universe with some equation. That just seems crazy to me and I can't go with you on that. Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too. He sounds like he's a pantheist in some way.

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.

As I said before, I can handle the calculi of mathematics up to a certain point, including the calculi of infinitesimals, which for me were always the most interesting for theological reasons. But after a certain point, it all becomes Chinese to me. I have just a tiny inkling of what smarter people are seeing after a certain point. Some have explained things to me in such a way that I can get a feel for them, but I can't experience them directly, let alone comprehend them. My genetics simply won't let me go any further; my understanding breaks down.

My father, an aircraft technician, was brilliant at math, the real deal. I can't do anything practical beyond the intermediate level, and I'm not even entirely competent at that level. It used to frustrate him to no end when I couldn't follow anymore.

"Dad, I can't do it anymore."

"But, son, it follows!"

"Yeah, I believe you, but you have to believe me too. You'll have to go on without me."​

I appreciate yours and Boss' point more now and will be more careful with the use of the term universal, where I should just stick with the term objective. Notwithstanding, "The Seven Things," sans the more complex details of the construct of infinity regarding #4, are universally apprehensible, and everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can readily understand the basic operations of addition (by extension, multiplication) and division in terms of infinity . . . and beyond to the infinite potentialities of divine attribution as premised on the universal idea of a God of the highest conceivable standard of perfection, which objectively and necessarily follows in order that we do not beg the question, in spite of what some, who would thoughtlessly impose the fallacies of subjectivism, imagine.

As for Michio Kaku, he is a scientific pantheist, I think, akin to Einstein, who held that what he had learned, more at, what he thought he had learned, from revealed religion, could not be true. Kaku is open to the idea of a divine sentience that merged with the cosmos and might still be consciously and personally aware, though you won't necessarily get that from this link. He has expressed this possibility elsewhere. So his idea is a bit more spiritually "advanced" than Einstein's apparently.

Michio Kaku s Religion and Political Views Hollowverse

"Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too."

I disagree! And this is not what you've said before. I think what you mean to say here is that gleaning what may be known about God from His general revelation is not the same thing as personally knowing or experiencing God. Right?

Yeah, you got me there but I just didn't say it right. I meant what you're saying. You can know about God from what you can see in the creation, but that's not the same thing like knowing Him personally. So I guess I do agree with the other stuff you're saying after all. It just seemed at first the what you were saying was a contradiction.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.

 

[sealybobo]

The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.

For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance.

If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.

Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.

Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.

And that’s the part I meant before when talking to you and Boss about it, but Boss got mad at me when I sort of agreed with him. That's the part he's saying that's right. I don't think he understood that I agreed with him on that level.

You can't do this with everyone, so don't say "universal" right? Some people can't see everything other people see and that's also true the other way around. People really advanced in mathematics can see a lot more than others, so it's not universal at that level. People have to take the word of someone. If they trust him they might believe what he's saying is okay, but really smart atheists are saying other things. The person is going to believe the guy who represents his bias. That's human nature, and that's the part you have to remember. But if you say it's objective that leaves things open in a universal sort of way without putting people off. That's what I was saying. But also I don’t believe like that physicist believes that we can ever read all of God's language in the universe with some equation. That just seems crazy to me and I can't go with you on that. Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too. He sounds like he's a pantheist in some way.

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.

As I said before, I can handle the calculi of mathematics up to a certain point, including the calculi of infinitesimals, which for me were always the most interesting for theological reasons. But after a certain point, it all becomes Chinese to me. I have just a tiny inkling of what smarter people are seeing after a certain point. Some have explained things to me in such a way that I can get a feel for them, but I can't experience them directly, let alone comprehend them. My genetics simply won't let me go any further; my understanding breaks down.

My father, an aircraft technician, was brilliant at math, the real deal. I can't do anything practical beyond the intermediate level, and I'm not even entirely competent at that level. It used to frustrate him to no end when I couldn't follow anymore.

"Dad, I can't do it anymore."

"But, son, it follows!"

"Yeah, I believe you, but you have to believe me too. You'll have to go on without me."​

I appreciate yours and Boss' point more now and will be more careful with the use of the term universal, where I should just stick with the term objective. Notwithstanding, "The Seven Things," sans the more complex details of the construct of infinity regarding #4, are universally apprehensible, and everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can readily understand the basic operations of addition (by extension, multiplication) and division in terms of infinity . . . and beyond to the infinite potentialities of divine attribution as premised on the universal idea of a God of the highest conceivable standard of perfection, which objectively and necessarily follows in order that we do not beg the question, in spite of what some, who would thoughtlessly impose the fallacies of subjectivism, imagine.

As for Michio Kaku, he is a scientific pantheist, I think, akin to Einstein, who held that what he had learned, more at, what he thought he had learned, from revealed religion, could not be true. Kaku is open to the idea of a divine sentience that merged with the cosmos and might still be consciously and personally aware, though you won't necessarily get that from this link. He has expressed this possibility elsewhere. So his idea is a bit more spiritually "advanced" than Einstein's apparently.

Michio Kaku s Religion and Political Views Hollowverse

"Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too."

I disagree! And this is not what you've said before. I think what you mean to say here is that gleaning what may be known about God from His general revelation is not the same thing as personally knowing or experiencing God. Right?

Yeah, you got me there but I just didn't say it right. I meant what you're saying. You can know about God from what you can see in the creation, but that's not the same thing like knowing Him personally. So I guess I do agree with the other stuff you're saying after all. It just seemed at first the what you were saying was a contradiction.

A little child truly believes their imaginary friend is real.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.

The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself. The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically. You're just being dishonest by changing the premise. The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.

 

[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.

You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself. The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically. You're just being dishonest by changing the premise. The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.

YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.

As presumed you would.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.

The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

I don't believe you because the seven things are objectively true by logic and have nothing to do with what theists or theism say about anything specific. These things are logically true. If you accept that we and the universe exist, the other five automatically follow logically for everyone because of the laws of logic that we all have in our minds. An objective skeptic doesn't start by lying to himself and claim to be objective. Skepticism is not intellectual dishonesty and being close minded.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself. The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically. You're just being dishonest by changing the premise. The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.

YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.

As presumed you would.

I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again. You're not fooling anyone but the dummies. I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.

 

[G.T.]

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.

It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.

The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

I don't believe you because the seven things are objectively true by logic and have nothing to do with what theists or theism say about anything specific. These things are logically true. If you accept that we and the universe exist, the other five automatically follow logically for everyone because of the laws of logic that we all have in our minds. An objective skeptic doesn't start by lying to himself and claim to be objective. Skepticism is not intellectual dishonesty and being close minded.

They do not all follow.

For instance, when MD changed "the idea of god is in our minds" (when I agreed) to "the idea of god is biologically hardwired in our minds," that is a COMPLETELY different commentary, and god being "biologically hardwired" is objective how? It's not. That is SUBjective. Be sure to google the difference.

 

[G.T.]

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.

You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself. The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically. You're just being dishonest by changing the premise. The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.

YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.

As presumed you would.

I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again. You're not fooling anyone but the dummies. I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.

Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?

They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.

You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creatOR cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."




On the contrary smart people realize this.

You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.

The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

I don't believe you because the seven things are objectively true by logic and have nothing to do with what theists or theism say about anything specific. These things are logically true. If you accept that we and the universe exist, the other five automatically follow logically for everyone because of the laws of logic that we all have in our minds. An objective skeptic doesn't start by lying to himself and claim to be objective. Skepticism is not intellectual dishonesty and being close minded.

They do not all follow.

For instance, when MD changed "the idea of god is in our minds" (when I agreed) to "the idea of god is biologically hardwired in our minds," that is a COMPLETELY different commentary, and god being "biologically hardwired" is objective how? It's not. That is SUBjective. Be sure to google the difference.

I understand what he's saying. I'm not a dummy. Go lie to the dummies. How come you mislead? You're just fooling the dummies. What's really weird about that is that you would rather look like a dummy than simply state it the right way. So are you dummy because this is not the right way to say what he said. I read the post where he explained exactly what is meant. Looks like you'd rather look like a dummy than tell the truth. Wow. Just wow.

 

[G.T.]

That's awfully close minded.

It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.

The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

I don't believe you because the seven things are objectively true by logic and have nothing to do with what theists or theism say about anything specific. These things are logically true. If you accept that we and the universe exist, the other five automatically follow logically for everyone because of the laws of logic that we all have in our minds. An objective skeptic doesn't start by lying to himself and claim to be objective. Skepticism is not intellectual dishonesty and being close minded.

They do not all follow.

For instance, when MD changed "the idea of god is in our minds" (when I agreed) to "the idea of god is biologically hardwired in our minds," that is a COMPLETELY different commentary, and god being "biologically hardwired" is objective how? It's not. That is SUBjective. Be sure to google the difference.

I understand what he's saying. I'm not a dummy. Go lie to the dummies. How come you mislead? You're just fooling the dummies. What's really weird about that is that you would rather look like a dummy than simply state it the right way. So are you dummy because this is not the right way to say what he said. I read the post where he explained exactly what is meant. Looks like you'd rather look like a dummy than tell the truth. Wow. Just wow.

dip, duck, dodge. coward.
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.

 

[Justin Davis]

It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.

The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

I don't believe you because the seven things are objectively true by logic and have nothing to do with what theists or theism say about anything specific. These things are logically true. If you accept that we and the universe exist, the other five automatically follow logically for everyone because of the laws of logic that we all have in our minds. An objective skeptic doesn't start by lying to himself and claim to be objective. Skepticism is not intellectual dishonesty and being close minded.

They do not all follow.

For instance, when MD changed "the idea of god is in our minds" (when I agreed) to "the idea of god is biologically hardwired in our minds," that is a COMPLETELY different commentary, and god being "biologically hardwired" is objective how? It's not. That is SUBjective. Be sure to google the difference.

I understand what he's saying. I'm not a dummy. Go lie to the dummies. How come you mislead? You're just fooling the dummies. What's really weird about that is that you would rather look like a dummy than simply state it the right way. So are you dummy because this is not the right way to say what he said. I read the post where he explained exactly what is meant. Looks like you'd rather look like a dummy than tell the truth. Wow. Just wow.

dip, duck, dodge. coward.
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.

Straw man.

 

[G.T.]

presupper dip duck dodge.

we'll wait for your magic logic rules that allow something unproven to become an axiomatic absolute, such as "we were created."

tic tock, presupper.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself. The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically. You're just being dishonest by changing the premise. The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.

YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.

As presumed you would.

I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again. You're not fooling anyone but the dummies. I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.

Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?

They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.

You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creatOR cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."




On the contrary smart people realize this.

You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.

One doesn't NEED to prove that natural processes fall outside of Creation, because Creation is natural, and axiomatically establishes the existence of natural processes.

LOL! Golly... I guess I will just never tire of people who claim that because they have some understanding of the bio-chemical processes inherent in nature, they understand the nature, of Nature.

And this almost exclusively being sent out by a group of people who can't understand WHY paying people to do less always results in more people, doing less... .

ROFLMNAO! Adorable...

 

[G.T.]

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.

You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself. The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically. You're just being dishonest by changing the premise. The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.

YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.

As presumed you would.

I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again. You're not fooling anyone but the dummies. I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.

Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?

They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.

You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creatOR cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."




On the contrary smart people realize this.

You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.

One doesn't NEED to prove that natural processes fall outside of Creation, because Creation is natural, and axiomatically establishes the existence of natural processes.

LOL! Golly... I guess I will just never tire of people who claim that because they have some understanding of the bio-chemical processes inherent in nature, they understand the nature, of Nature.

And this almost exclusively being sent out by a group of people who can't understand WHY paying people to do less always results in more people, doing less... .

ROFLMNAO! Adorable...

I'm sorry bud, let me put it to terms you may be able to understand.

Existence may or may not be eternal, i.e. always WAS.

Existence is not proven to have been creatED, by a sentient being.

Hope that clears that up for you.

 

[MrDVS1]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

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

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

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

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

Anyone who believes in Jesus is just someone who had their brain eaten by a zombie.

I say that because post resurrection Jesus is a zombie. No bodily fluids, no pulse, no heartbeat, no breathing, no body temperature.

Just another BS Story from the unknowledgable.

 

[Justin Davis]

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

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

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

W H O A, Hollie, HUGE Time out

A Faith healing which is fraudulent/false
is NOT the same as natural spiritual healing.

Boss is on the money, but you appear to lose track of the potential reality of things. Inserting the term natural in the face of Hollie’s declaration implies that any given instance of spiritual healing is not or cannot be effectuated by divinity, and Boss rightly understands that the term supernatural is often abusively applied to God to mean something that is not natural, when in fact as it is applied to the idea of God as Creator that is in our minds denotes an actual Being that is, therefore, naturally existent, albeit, of a higher order of being.

Yes, MD so proving that Spiritual Healing can be BOTH natural/consistent/demonstratable by science AND use the SAME process that Christians symbolize using "spiritual" terms and concepts that otherwise sound supernatural
would END THAT WHOLE argument Hollie uses to reject things
and allow agreement that there is a consistent process going on anyway.

So that removes the objections that Christians are pushing something make believe and unreal.
It is real and has real effects in the world measurable and quantifiable by science.
So there is no contradiction.

This helps people not reject your proof just because of a bias
against Christians pushing religious mumbo jumbo.

There really is real practical application to science and medicine
that makes this a much needed lifesaving therapy and treatment to cure conditions
that "medicine alone" cannot always cure but combining the mental, medical and spiritual treatment CAN help to cure.

Well, I gave you the only logically and scientifically bullet proof foundation for the defense of your position, insofar as spiritual healing goes, but if you'd rather ill-advisedly cut off the nose of Christianity to spite your face as you contradictorily opt for the weaker position, which firmly plants spiritual healing in the soil of religious dogma, it's no sweat off my face brow.

This leaves you with a scientifically inaccurate and presumptuous premise, pseudoscience, that not only cuts off the nose of Christianity, but, logically, that of every other religion, including yours, based on made up terms and arbitrary logic.

This is the same thing I've tried to tell her. She keeps jumping back and forth between science and religion when all she has to do is follow the formal rules of logic and science.

 

[Justin Davis]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

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

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

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

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

Anyone who believes in Jesus is just someone who had their brain eaten by a zombie.

I say that because post resurrection Jesus is a zombie. No bodily fluids, no pulse, no heartbeat, no breathing, no body temperature.

Just another BS Story from the unknowledgable.

Do you exist?