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

[Boss]

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

It depends on how you define "existence" as I have pointed out before. IF you mean a physical material existence, it is very much in evidence that had a beginning point and will have an ending point. It is not eternal. Physical material existence resides in spacetime continuum created by an expanding universe, also known as "reality."

However, if by "existence" you are including the spiritual nature which obviously and logically created the physical, then existence is likely eternal. We don't have a science of the spiritual, we're not advanced enough as a species, it's beyond our capability. Perhaps one day we'll venture out of the primitive caves spiritually and discover this?

 

[Justin Davis]

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,


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.

.

I don't know what you're talking about half the time. God as life sounds like God starts to exist when life starts and then God predates the earth and life, admission to the everlasting. Somebody just shoot me. I'm so confused. What came first? John Wayne or his horse?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Well... for starters, you'll need to define eternal. And since our species has little to no understanding of what that actually means, it's fairly unlikely that you'll be found with that understanding.

Secondly, the absence of evidence on issues beyond the means of the subject investigator, is not evidence.

Third... these criteria do NOT preclude the means for reason to extrapolate. The points will NEVER be established in factual terms, within the scope of our existence... thus they are quite irrelevant.

Fourth, without the Creator component, all human reasoning becomes moot... as all humanity is, is a tiny, irrelevant organism floating within a just as irrelevant bubble which surrounds a less relevant rock, hurtling through a vacuum of incalculable space... which in terms of linear time, will come and go without notice and without meaning to anyone or anything, in the span of an imperceptible instant.

Which means, assuming that you're keeping score, that none of this matters, that all of it bears no meaning and if you'll check your conscience, you'll find that THAT is palpably false.

So, either you're crazy and your brain is assigning value to that which otherwise has no value, or... you're missing something, that is as critical to your being as it is irrelevant to your present existence.

Frankly... having read your work here. It could go either way... but I'm currently leaning toward the latter, despite the urge to favor the former.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

blow hard ad hom bullshit treat me with respect if you want me to have a conversation and answer your points else, im not paid to sit here and converse with random strangers who are dicks.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted. (You did the best ya could Scout)

See how easy this is kids?

And what a wonderful, albeit typical demonstration of the limitations of cognitive dissonance common to the anti-theist flame out? Asserting fallacious reasoning, through the lament of fallacious reasoning!

ROFL! Oh how I DO adore the CLASSICS!

 

[Boss]

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

It depends on how you define "existence" as I have pointed out before. IF you mean a physical material existence, it is very much in evidence that had a beginning point and will have an ending point. It is not eternal. Physical material existence resides in spacetime continuum created by an expanding universe, also known as "reality."

However, if by "existence" you are including the spiritual nature which obviously and logically created the physical, then existence is likely eternal. We don't have a science of the spiritual, we're not advanced enough as a species, it's beyond our capability. Perhaps one day we'll venture out of the primitive caves spiritually and discover this?

we have no evidence outside of whats occurred in this particular universe.

We don't need evidence outside this universe for physical nature inside this universe. In this universe, we have Uncertainty Principle, Entropy and Laws of Thermodynamics along with quantum mechanics, which all provide evidence that a physical material universe had a start date and will have an end date. This universe exists in spacetime which is enabled by an expanding universe. Reality is simply our perceptions along the arrow of time and space.

Where you are failing in understanding is in thinking some material reality might have existed before the physical universe existed, but that isn't possible. At least, not according to the science we are aware of at this time. I have to be careful not to catch my britches on my own point about how we can't "know" things.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

your post had several errors. ... .

Yet... when presented with the opportunity to identify them, you opted to avoid that which reason otherwise establishes as something you desperately NEED to do. And which where such WERE the case, you'd have little means to muster the discipline to provide you the means to avoid doing so.

Hmm...

So... I'm going to go with reason here and say: BULLSHIT!

And after THAT, I am going to let YOU PROVE ME RIGHT!

By directly and unambiguously challenging you to state the specific errors to which you referred... OR concede through your looming failure to do so.

Now... at BEST you'll expose your own errors. At worst... you'll come up with any number of irrational excuses to avoid doing just that.

So... LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL!

Amazin' AIN

Yes... it is a burden and yes... it is a gas.

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

It depends on how you define "existence" as I have pointed out before. IF you mean a physical material existence, it is very much in evidence that had a beginning point and will have an ending point. It is not eternal. Physical material existence resides in spacetime continuum created by an expanding universe, also known as "reality."

However, if by "existence" you are including the spiritual nature which obviously and logically created the physical, then existence is likely eternal. We don't have a science of the spiritual, we're not advanced enough as a species, it's beyond our capability. Perhaps one day we'll venture out of the primitive caves spiritually and discover this?

we have no evidence outside of whats occurred in this particular universe.

We don't need evidence outside this universe for physical nature inside this universe. In this universe, we have Uncertainty Principle, Entropy and Laws of Thermodynamics along with quantum mechanics, which all provide evidence that a physical material universe had a start date and will have an end date. This universe exists in spacetime which is enabled by an expanding universe. Reality is simply our perceptions along the arrow of time and space.

Where you are failing in understanding is in thinking some material reality might have existed before the physical universe existed, but that isn't possible. At least, not according to the science we are aware of at this time. I have to be careful not to catch my britches on my own point about how we can't "know" things.

This post here, of yours, is speaking directly to our own universe Boss.

You, n'or science - knows that a physical existence ASIDE FROM OUR UNIVERSE doesn't NOW and/or never existed.

Therefore - it is not an absolute (something I dont believe you even think exists to begin with (absolutes) so i dont know why you're even hopping into this conversation to begin with, which is simply to advise those whom use the TAG argument are not being logical because their 1st premise is not an axiom, it is an assertion. They need it to be an axiom for TAG to work.

Oh that's BRILLIANT!

You're saying that the absence of evidence, which is otherwise irrelevant to beings whose entire existence is predicated upon a biological construct designed to negotiate THIS EXISTENCE, within this TINY Bubble, within a 'space', existing within the singular phase of that which we call 'time' to which our 'solution plotter' is solely capable of negotiating, IS EVIDENCE?

ROFLMNAO! Oh GOD! That is HYSTERICAL!

While humanity is definitely a limited species... YOU are a first class example of WHY.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL!

Amazin' AIN

Yes... it is a burden and yes... it is a gas.

It depends on how you define "existence" as I have pointed out before. IF you mean a physical material existence, it is very much in evidence that had a beginning point and will have an ending point. It is not eternal. Physical material existence resides in spacetime continuum created by an expanding universe, also known as "reality."

However, if by "existence" you are including the spiritual nature which obviously and logically created the physical, then existence is likely eternal. We don't have a science of the spiritual, we're not advanced enough as a species, it's beyond our capability. Perhaps one day we'll venture out of the primitive caves spiritually and discover this?

we have no evidence outside of whats occurred in this particular universe.

We don't need evidence outside this universe for physical nature inside this universe. In this universe, we have Uncertainty Principle, Entropy and Laws of Thermodynamics along with quantum mechanics, which all provide evidence that a physical material universe had a start date and will have an end date. This universe exists in spacetime which is enabled by an expanding universe. Reality is simply our perceptions along the arrow of time and space.

Where you are failing in understanding is in thinking some material reality might have existed before the physical universe existed, but that isn't possible. At least, not according to the science we are aware of at this time. I have to be careful not to catch my britches on my own point about how we can't "know" things.

This post here, of yours, is speaking directly to our own universe Boss.

You, n'or science - knows that a physical existence ASIDE FROM OUR UNIVERSE doesn't NOW and/or never existed.

Therefore - it is not an absolute (something I dont believe you even think exists to begin with (absolutes) so i dont know why you're even hopping into this conversation to begin with, which is simply to advise those whom use the TAG argument are not being logical because their 1st premise is not an axiom, it is an assertion. They need it to be an axiom for TAG to work.

Oh that's BRILLIANT!

You're saying that the absence of evidence, which is relevant to beings whose entire existence is predicated upon a biological construct designed to negotiate THIS EXISTENCE, within this TINY Bubble, within a 'space', existing within the singular phase of that which we call 'time' to which our 'solutions plotter' is solely capable of negotiating, IS EVIDENCE?

ROFLMNAO! Oh GOD! That is HYSTERICAL!

While humanity is definitely a limited species... YOU are a first class example of WHY.

No, you just don't know how to read and also arrive at incorrect implications.

I'm saying that the absence of evidence proves: nothing.

OH! (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...) And "N'or" is a contraction for what? It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.

Since there's no evidence that we are a creation created by a sentient mind - - - - - doesn't mean that we AREN'T.

That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are. Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible... Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them... and where reason exists, so exists sentience.

Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.

That is not my point of view.

My point of view is that we don't know - - - - - - and the reason I'm pointing this out is because someone is trying to call god's existence a logical axiom (a given, accepted by all).

You're welcome for clearing up your inability to read between the lines and critically think about what you're reading.

God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.

That all said, have a good day, douchebag.

Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.

Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Proof: evidence in either soundly reasoned argument or physical establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

See how easy that is?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL!

Amazin' AIN

Yes... it is a burden and yes... it is a gas.
Oh that's BRILLIANT!

You're saying that the absence of evidence, which is relevant to beings whose entire existence is predicated upon a biological construct designed to negotiate THIS EXISTENCE, within this TINY Bubble, within a 'space', existing within the singular phase of that which we call 'time' to which our 'solutions plotter' is solely capable of negotiating, IS EVIDENCE?

ROFLMNAO! Oh GOD! That is HYSTERICAL!

While humanity is definitely a limited species... YOU are a first class example of WHY.

No, you just don't know how to read and also arrive at incorrect implications.

I'm saying that the absence of evidence proves: nothing.

OH! (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...) And "N'or" is a contraction for what? It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.

Since there's no evidence that we are a creation created by a sentient mind - - - - - doesn't mean that we AREN'T.

That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are. Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible... Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them... and where reason exists, so exists sentience.

Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.

That is not my point of view.

My point of view is that we don't know - - - - - - and the reason I'm pointing this out is because someone is trying to call god's existence a logical axiom (a given, accepted by all).

You're welcome for clearing up your inability to read between the lines and critically think about what you're reading.

God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.

Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.

That all said, have a good day, douchebag.

Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.

Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

See how easy that is?

Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.

We disagree.

God is the Creator, the creation exists, therefore the Creator, God, exists.

Such is axiomatic... that there exist those who disagree, is irrelevant to any of it.

You disagree and I've proven that the basis of your disagreement is fatally flawed with virtually no effort on my part whatsoever. Do you feel that you're a poor advocate within the scope of those who 'feel' as you feel?

I've debated thousands of 'em and I gotta say, you're a shining example of hope... You're the proverbial one eye'd man.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL!

Amazin' AIN

Yes... it is a burden and yes... it is a gas.
Oh that's BRILLIANT!

You're saying that the absence of evidence, which is relevant to beings whose entire existence is predicated upon a biological construct designed to negotiate THIS EXISTENCE, within this TINY Bubble, within a 'space', existing within the singular phase of that which we call 'time' to which our 'solutions plotter' is solely capable of negotiating, IS EVIDENCE?

ROFLMNAO! Oh GOD! That is HYSTERICAL!

While humanity is definitely a limited species... YOU are a first class example of WHY.

No, you just don't know how to read and also arrive at incorrect implications.

I'm saying that the absence of evidence proves: nothing.

OH! (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...) And "N'or" is a contraction for what? It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.

Since there's no evidence that we are a creation created by a sentient mind - - - - - doesn't mean that we AREN'T.

That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are. Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible... Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them... and where reason exists, so exists sentience.

Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.

That is not my point of view.

My point of view is that we don't know - - - - - - and the reason I'm pointing this out is because someone is trying to call god's existence a logical axiom (a given, accepted by all).

You're welcome for clearing up your inability to read between the lines and critically think about what you're reading.

God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.

Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.

That all said, have a good day, douchebag.

Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.

Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

See how easy that is?

Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.

We disagree.

God 'IS" > . < And that doesn't require so much ONE human to validate it, for such to "BE".

 

[Truman123]

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.

To any thinking person they were answered satisfactorily long ago.


Do you think morality started AFTER civilization?


Even Christians must admit that Jesus Christ died in a civilization.


It's a lazy argument and you should think more clearly if you hope to have a grown up discussion.