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

[emilynghiem]

Emily I know you have good intentions and all, but you're wasting a lot of time making posts that are a complete misread of whats going in.

I'm not ignoring md's points because he's a dick


I'm seeing and reading his points quite clearly.

TAG is a logical fallacy.

You cannot.prove god.by asserting god in the premise.

So when you say things like 'maybe tag fits in somewhere...."
No, it doesn't. You're wasting time be even saying something like that.

And last point: tag is not md's. Its been around and debunked as a fallacy but by fundies for.centurie .

It is still serving as a the base ground
around which to organize ideas to explain and correct points that come up.

So it is still part of the greater process of resolving these issues.
It's a matter of whether we use it successfully or not.

I believe it can still lead to effective points being made
and appreciate your contributions to that end. So it still has value and purpose
toward resolving things in teh spirit of truth to be consistent and to get all the kinks out, thanks!

 

[G.T.]

Emily I know you have good intentions and all, but you're wasting a lot of time making posts that are a complete misread of whats going in.

I'm not ignoring md's points because he's a dick


I'm seeing and reading his points quite clearly.

TAG is a logical fallacy.

You cannot.prove god.by asserting god in the premise.

So when you say things like 'maybe tag fits in somewhere...."
No, it doesn't. You're wasting time be even saying something like that.

And last point: tag is not md's. Its been around and debunked as a fallacy but by fundies for.centurie .

It is still serving as a the base ground
around which to organize ideas to explain and correct points that come up.

So it is still part of the greater process of resolving these issues.
It's a matter of whether we use it successfully or not.

I believe it can still lead to effective points being made
and appreciate your contributions to that end. So it still has value and purpose
toward resolving things in teh spirit of truth to be consistent and to get all the kinks out, thanks!

Maybe tag is your guys base ground, but for me quick sand doesn't make too good a foundation

 

[Justin Davis]

Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.

From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
* some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
* some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
* and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.

So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.

it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.

MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.

Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.

God is everything
Everything exists
Therefore, god is real!

Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.

For example, I can throw out the idea that
human nature is body/mind/spirit
or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality

and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.

Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.

And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
motivating or inspiring it for us.

And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.

So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?

I can tell you something for certain, and perhaps save you some time:

I will never....Neva Eva Eva Eva Eva.......take a grown up adult seriously, who thinks that TAG represents a sound argument.

OK so what would have to be acknowledged to show how this works within its own constructs.

Such as saying if 2 is defined to be * * and 4 is defined to be * * * *
then of course 2+2=4 and anything else is going to run into contradictions!

The fastest way I know to resolve an argument with someone like MD
is to find a way to AGREE with them on how they are right.

Don't you agree that if you define God to be something that exists,
then any statement that God doesn't exist is going to contradict what you just defined God to be at the start?
Like duh!

MD has defined god as a sentient creator of everything.

Everything is not proven to BE a creation.

What are you missing here?

It seems in your attempt to be a pacifist, the arguments presented are going in one ear and out the other.

Stop wasting my time please

I don't wish to reconcile TAG for him.

Its a falacial argument. That's the bare bones. The rest is just grandstanding.

That's not right. He defined God as "a sentient Being of unparalleled greatness" who is the Creator, which would mean a divinity that has all the features of consciousness that we have, only infinite in their magnitude. From where I'm standing it sure looks like you like to argue against straw men a lot because the real arguments hurt your head or maybe its the orifice of your butt that keeps getting hurt. Liars are cowards. What a sorry excuse of a man you are.

 

[emilynghiem]

What's your empirical proof for that, Einstein?

OK Justin, now let us be fair

Neither can any of us produce "empirical evidence" that God created all things in creation
because we cannot recreate that moment and we weren't physically there.

GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that
God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds.

And M.D. also stated up front, very clearly, that the reason he works with logical arguments and definitions,
is that SCIENCE cannot prove or disprove but only verify/falsify.

GT and others want scientific proof or they find this logic stuff to be USELESS since it was self-defined to begin with.

What I offer is to show patterns by demonstrating how spiritual healing works by forgiveness,
so there is enough empirical demonstration to show a PATTERN to the PROCESS.

The process can be replicated so Science can Demonstrate, falsify and verify
while writing out the explanation of the pattern and stages of the process can
help with the logistic/global language that MD wants to establish, though he is set on TAG
and I focus on spiritual healing and forgiveness as the key to demonstrating universality.

 

[amrchaos]

The more I think about what GT is saying and the more I recall post I read, I think I wasted a whole bunch of time for nothing

Wait--I learned what TAG is--and how their proponents argue and behave. I won't do that again.

 

[G.T.]

Is that post really supposed to say something? Justin?

Take a shot at this tough guy:

Is something an axiom if its not universally accepted and other possibilities are not ruled out?

Think hard little dweeb, and try not to tag in MD if ya can. Pun intended.


Or.......like always.......dip duck dodge.

 

[G.T.]

The more I think about what GT is saying and the more I recall post I read, I think I wasted a whole bunch of time for nothing

Wait--I learned what TAG is--and how their proponents argue and behave. I won't do that again.

Its so patently absurd that frankly, I dont know why I do it either.

I think maybe my hatred of cowardice.

 

[G.T.]

Is that post really supposed to say something? Justin?

Take a shot at this tough guy:

Is something an axiom if its not universally accepted and other possibilities are not ruled out?

Think hard little dweeb, and try not to tag in MD if ya can. Pun intended.


Or.......like always.......dip duck dodge.

In order to answer in the affirmative, you must be ignorant of what axiom means.

In order to answer in the negative, you agree that TAG is unsound as a proof.

Gluck ducking this for everyone to see, Justin. Your feet have been called to the fire. Dance.

 

[G.T.]

Reality = prescriptive.
Logic = descriptive (of reality).
God = hypothesis.

Any questions?

 

[amrchaos]

Hold it Emily,

I have to warn you about using empirical evidence. What can be assumed from it and its value to an argument can vary from person to person.

Think bout it this way--there are currently several competing theories all based on basically the same evidence--our reality. Those several theories are not resolvable despite everyone looking at the same evidence. In fact there are counter-theories that claim to disprove other theories.


No one is going to concede their position because it involves accepting something they doubt is true based upon the evidence. (Hey I just described the field of cosmology!!)

Others are disregarding evidence because they feel it is irrelevant, suspect or having explainations not related to the(or their) bigger picture.

In such a situation, simple talking to one another is not going to work. What is needed is some kind of information that all can agree on and use to come to the same conclusion from.

 

[Justin Davis]

I wonder if arm chaos knows what tag is.

Arm, tag is this argument:

1. God created all knowledge.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. Therefore, god exists.

A logical proof requires each premise to be absolutely true.

Premise #1 itself is unproven. Knowledge's origin is unknown, and its ALSO unknown if knowledge even HAS an origin and isn't eternal. So premise #1 is not axiomatic or universally accepted, it simply begs the question by presupposing what its trying to prove.

They call tag PROOF that god exists.

If you find that a sound argument, I'm not going to disparage you or anything because you haven't me........but it is rather silly

Actually, this is my first time seeing TAG

It is really slick if you go through it fast. You end up accepting a whole bunch of questionable notions. #3 made me re-examine 1 and ask the question "Is it an inductive argument?"

I'm talking about "7 things"

I know it's true, and I'm not dumb. It's an axiom that has stood the test of time. If you what you say about it was true it wouldn't be an issue. It wouldn't be in the Bible. Kant wouldn't have argued it. It wouldn't be argued by anyone. Just how stupid are you? Rawlings has exposed every one of the stupid things that retard said in that video for what they are so that makes you a retard who can't think his way out of a wet paper bag. Since you think you can just lie at will and insinuate that people of common sense are stupid, I'll treat you with the same contempt. You're a smart alec punk and a sissy anyway with no common sense. Take you're sillypsism and slip it. Scientific skepticism is good but who with common sense gives two cents to sillypsism in the real world? And you have been almost totally wrong about everything you've said. About the physics, and the math and logic in inductive and deductive arguments. I think Rawlings is wrong. I don't think you picked up on the error in my post earlier that he fixed. You mostly didn't know what you were talking about that's all. Besides I don't need you to tell me anything about those types of reasoning that I didn't already know. I just said something wrong, I didn't think wrong. You sort of smell like QW to me.

 

[G.T.]

Is that post anything besides a substance less appeal to heroes?

Justin, you don't have to BOAST about how you don't think for yourself dude. Its kind of pathetic, and TAG is ******* stupid

But I guess dogma isn't dogma if it doesn't work on the gullible .
.....





(By the way, nice dodge).

 

[Boss]

This thread isn't about humanity coming together for some greater purpose.

We can talk about that some other time.

This thread is about whether or not anyone can prove god.

No, the thread is about whether or not there is a sound syllogistic argument for existence of God. The question as to whether anyone can prove God to another individual who doesn't believe in God is answered. No.

Now, Rawlings has presented a pretty valid syllogistic argument for existence of God, in my opinion. Whether he has "proven" to you that God exists, is something you can judge for yourself. No one can ever "prove" something to you that you are not willing to believe. This is what gets me about Atheists... they hang out in these threads as if to say, hey... knock this chip off my shoulder! I've had it surgically bolted to my shoulder blade, but go ahead and try to knock it off... double dog dare you to try! No one can ever make you believe that which you don't want to believe. There isn't even anything you would consider proof or evidence, because the thing it proves or is evidence for is something you don't believe exists.

 

[G.T.]

This thread isn't about humanity coming together for some greater purpose.

We can talk about that some other time.

This thread is about whether or not anyone can prove god.

No, the thread is about whether or not there is a sound syllogistic argument for existence of God. The question as to whether anyone can prove God to another individual who doesn't believe in God is answered. No.

Now, Rawlings has presented a pretty valid syllogistic argument for existence of God, in my opinion. Whether he has "proven" to you that God exists, is something you can judge for yourself. No one can ever "prove" something to you that you are not willing to believe. This is what gets me about Atheists... they hang out in these threads as if to say, hey... knock this chip off my shoulder! I've had it surgically bolted to my shoulder blade, but go ahead and try to knock it off... double dog dare you to try! No one can ever make you believe that which you don't want to believe. There isn't even anything you would consider proof or evidence, because the thing it proves or is evidence for is something you don't believe exists.

No, Rawlings presented a flawed argument.

Its premise presupposed its conclusion, which is only sound as a tautology, or an axiom.

'God created knowledge' cannot be an axiom until all other possibilities for existence are ruled out and ALSO its universally accepted.


**** off.

 

[Justin Davis]

Hey MD

It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!

Maybe you should take a break for a few days. You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted. It will help keep you out of trouble.

Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?

OK

Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.

Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might not exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound? LOL!

Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy. That was a hoot! Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school? Did you flunk that course or did your instructor take pity on and give you a C so your parents would keep throwing away good money after bed on your education? LOL!

(Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)

Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity. That was a hoot, too!

Yeah, I'm gong to start calling him Sillypsismchaos. What kind of persons but silly people like that guy in the video say that axioms are informal fallacies or that the TAG says that logic is created? The whole point of the TAG is that logic is something that couldn't have been made or created. What an idiot. The writers of the Bible and Kant begged the question and believe logic is created. Things that have stood the test of time for centuries can suddenly be tossed out by the straw men of idiots.,

 

[amrchaos]

I am kind of confused here

Is Justin attacking me, or GT?

If it is me, why? Who have I insulted?

 

[Boss]

The whole point of the TAG is that logic is something that couldn't have been made or created.

So you believe that logic is something beyond the power of God to create?

Interesting.

 

[Boss]

No, Rawlings presented a flawed argument.

Its premise presupposed its conclusion, which is only sound as a tautology, or an axiom.

'God created knowledge' cannot be an axiom until all other possibilities for existence are ruled out and ALSO its universally accepted.


**** off.

Sorry, that is YOUR opinion, and I disagree. The premise was, "Does God exist?" The conclusion was, "God does exist!"

And, if only you could present some of these "other possibilities" for existence so we could rule them out, that would be nice. So far, you've not really presented anything. All I ever get from Atheists are "just because" arguments, which don't offer any explanation for existence. So we can't "rule out" a non-explanation.

 

[Hollie]

No, Rawlings presented a flawed argument.

Its premise presupposed its conclusion, which is only sound as a tautology, or an axiom.

'God created knowledge' cannot be an axiom until all other possibilities for existence are ruled out and ALSO its universally accepted.


**** off.

Sorry, that is YOUR opinion, and I disagree. The premise was, "Does God exist?" The conclusion was, "God does exist!"

And, if only you could present some of these "other possibilities" for existence so we could rule them out, that would be nice. So far, you've not really presented anything. All I ever get from Atheists are "just because" arguments, which don't offer any explanation for existence. So we can't "rule out" a non-explanation.

What the religiously addled don't seem to understand is that the presumptive and pointless TAG can similarly be used to "prove" all the gawds and any other silly, pointless conception of human invention.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hey MD

It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!

Maybe you should take a break for a few days. You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted. It will help keep you out of trouble.

Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?

OK

Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.

Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might not exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound? LOL!

Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy. That was a hoot! Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school? Did you flunk that course or did your instructor take pity on and give you a C so your parents would keep throwing away good money after bed on your education? LOL!

(Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)

Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity. That was a hoot, too!

Yeah, I'm gong to start calling him Sillypsismchaos. What kind of persons but silly people like that guy in the video say that axioms are informal fallacies or that the TAG says that logic is created? The whole point of the TAG is that logic is something that couldn't have been made or created. What an idiot. The writers of the Bible and Kant begged the question and believe logic is created. Things that have stood the test of time for centuries can suddenly be tossed out by the straw men of idiots.,

Well, I don't want to get too personal with this, but I'm not giving any more serious thought to the posts of that dingbat until he starts acknowledging that his drivel has already been addressed. How many times does it take?

I think he's got a real thing for solipsism. There might be something sexual going on there, some kind of fetish.

I already told him I qualified The Seven Things from the beginning with regard to these kinds of philosophical objections and why #1 and #2 are expressed as empirical facts. Right. As if most people do not regard them to be empirical facts, as if there's anything stopping this dingbat from intellectually modifying them in his mind, as if such a modification makes any difference to the central construct and the ramifications thereof, as if they were not primarily of an a priori nature or as if every damn thing that is strictly empirical or inductive in nature had to pass muster with him, when the only legitimately pragmatic, universal standard for logic and science and for people of common sense is justified true belief/knowledge.

This punk is calling me a troll?!

So let him make #1 and #2 I and a purely rational impression, for crying out loud! Whose holding a gun to his head? So where did this I he keeps going on about come from? A trash can? His toilet bowl? His dog's last bowel movement? Oh, wait! No! Those things would be empirical, and of course all syllogisms are necessarily instances of inductive reasoning if there's something empirical in them.

Not.

Maybe God slipped him a mickey or maybe he slipped a mickey to himself.