Yes, that's the first thing but the other thing I don't get is that if something can't logically eliminated that makes it logically necessarily, but you keep saying that some things that can't be eliminated are not logically necessary.
I'm officially confused. The post gives me a headache.
No need for headaches. Logical possibility is not logical necessity. Just because an idea cannot be logically ruled out does not mean that it's logically necessary.
Something that is logically necessary is axiomatically true in organic logic and can justifiably be asserted as something that must be ultimately true, even if it's of a transcendental nature, because the denial of it throws the negative proposition into the sea of paradox, contradiction or incoherency.
Now if the logically necessary/axiomatic proposition if of a transcendental nature, it would be something that science cannot currently verify, and in constructive logic, it would be given a
valid, albeit, might or might not be true value for analytic purposes.
Some transcendental propositions are just logically possible, so they aren't assigned a value of
valid, but might or might not be true, just a value of
might or might not be true, because while they are not paradoxically contradictory or incoherent, there's no apparent necessity attached to them either.
Also, model logic formally deals with propositions of possibility and necessity directly.
Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K), depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. Rational facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are not held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K.
So let me give you some examples so you can see what is meant by JTB/K.
The Big Bang Theory is currently held to be JTB/K. So are the fundamentals of the theories of special and general relativity and quantum physics. Now, of course, we know that well-established scientific theories are "tentative facts" subject to revision or falsification, partially or entirely. But we give them a truth value in all forms of logic and grant them JTB/K as a matter of practicality until such time they are overturned because they have stood the test of time, mathematically and empirically, as verified over and over again, even if they don't hold up universally. We're just missing the unifying theory that will fill in the gaps.
Because they are universal, the theory that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are bioneurologically hardwired is currently held to be JTB/K.
The idea that this is ultimately true because they are grounded on a spiritually universal substance/entity is held to be logically possible in all forms of logic, a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. This idea does not conflict with the biological truth and is not inherently contradictory, but there is no objectively apparent reason to hold that it is a logical necessity. Hence, it is not held to be JTB/K and would only be given a
might or might not be true value in all forms of logic, not a
valid, might or might not be true value.
Now here's a twist for you. The
understanding that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out is JTB/K. That's a universal fact of human cognition, assigned a truth value in all forms of logic as well, including constructive logic, because the nature of that proposition is not transcendental at all. It's a fact of human psychology.
However, the idea that God does in fact exist is different, isn't it? Yet it's assigned a truth value in organic/classical logic and in model logic, and a
valid, might or might not be true value in constructive logic. So, is it an idea that is JTB/K?
The answer is
yes! For it is an axiom in organic and model logic that cannot be logically negated or scientifically falsified.
And that alone exposes the OP's ignorance of the formal standards of logic, as it falsifies his claim that there exists no valid proof for God's existence.
JTB/K is the controlling factor, which requires that its seal of approval be granted only to propositions, whether they be rational or empirical, that are
logically/theoretically necessary, not merely
logically/hypothetically possible.
1. Well-established, empirical theories are held to be JTB/K, albeit, tentatively, and are assigned
truth values in all forms of logic.
2. Rational cogitations/propositions that are axiomatic (logically necessary) and are not of a transcendental nature are held to be JTB/K and are assigned
truth values in all forms of logic.
3. Rational cogitations/propositions that are axiomatic (logically necessary) but are of a transcendental nature are held to be JTB/K and are assigned
truth values in organic/classical logic and in model logic, and a
valid, might or might not be true value in constructive logic for analytic purposes.
From this we may also see that there are degrees of surety within the range of JTB/K, but the prize goes to those propositions that are logically/theoretically necessary.
But there remains a wrinkle for most all atheists and for some agnostics.
While all logicians (whether they be theists, atheists or agnostics) know that under the formal conventions/standards of academia that the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin (what I have labeled
The Seven Things, including
#6, i.e., the TAG) and the underlying foundation (the
reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin) constitute JTB/K, and are either true or valid in all forms of logic
: atheist and agnostic logicians are going to stress the epistemological skepticism of constructive logic with regard to the transcendental aspects.
In the world of philosophical and scientific materialism, particularly from those who hold to the metaphysics of ontological naturalism, you're going to get to the verdict that the transcendental aspects of
The Seven Things are logically possible, but not logically necessary, which is bullshit. Also, they're going to blow right past the irreducible mind and just go with the
reductio ad absurdum of the of the infinite regression of origin for the sake of the cause-and-effect dynamics of science. Ditto, cranks like the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism or scientists like Hawking. Only the latter go a step further with regard to the transcendental aspects of
The Seven Things, holding them to be highly improbable or just plain hooey.
Arrogant, idiot savants.
Their entire edifice for truth is the tentative dichotomy of scientific verification-falsification, the least sure category of JTB/K, which is in turn based on a metaphysical apriority that is not scientifically verifiable, coupled with a belief based on sheer faith that has never been observed to happen or is known to be possible
: the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents and the physical laws of nature can produce empirical existents above the level of basic infrastructure.
Now look at what I told BreezeWood
:
Notwithstanding, you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof that exists in our minds. Not even TST assert that spiritual consciousness can be axiomatically assigned to any other existent but the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof.
That's right. The only idea known to man to which spirituality adheres as a logical necessity is, not mankind or any other finite thing, but the idea of God. And because the idea of God cannot be logically ruled out or be negated without positively proving the logical necessity of God's existence in organic logic, it is an axiom that carries the weight of JTB/K.
For crying out loud! Behold just how crazy atheism is, something the greatest scientists of history (Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck . . .) would have never imagined possible, i.e., that scientists of all people would sport so many atheists today. The universe screams God's existence, from the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness to the staggering complexity, yet uniformly well-ordered composition and physical laws of the cosmos. Indeed, the ramifications of the special and general theories of relativity and the imperatives of quantum physics have never screamed it more loudly.
My point?
The materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, unlike the axiomatic positive proof for God's existence in the organic logic of human cognition, which one would reasonably expect God to put into our heads so that we may know that He is,
can be logically ruled out, negated and discarded. The atheist's metaphysics cannot be assigned a truth value in any form of logic and does not carry the weight of JTB/K for obvious reasons! Now, methodological naturalism holds these values and this status, but not ontological/metaphysical naturalism. LOL!
Hocus Pocus.
The fact remains that the logical proofs hold. There is no argument that can overthrow them. 
