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

[Boss]

Bottom line: your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot!

Well I am not really a "theist" as much as a Spiritualist. However, from what I know of theism, all theistic belief centers on a God who is omniscient and omnipotent.

Omniscient definition, having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

Omnipotent definition, almighty or infinite in power, as God.

You are arguing to the contrary of this, yet you still want to run back to it when challenged. I'm starting to wonder if you and Justin aren't Atheists trying to punk us.

And how about STOP exploiting other posters and pretending they are your allies here. No one that I can see is agreeing with you on any damn thing, except for Justin.

 

[Boss]

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity

No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!

 

[Inevitable]

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity

No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!

He isn't even a clever troll. Trolls can be entertaining but these two are just silly. Long winded speeches, that isn't how you troll

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If logic doesn't prove anything then 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a mathematical proof. Tell fancy pants the whole truth about your stupid idea that we can't know that 2 + 2 = 4, the stupid argument that everybody, even the atheists told you is moonbat crazy.

I've not seen anyone post that my argument is "moonbat crazy" and you've certainly not supported that claim. You keep on saying it, but that doesn't make things TRUE.

We've been over "2+2=4" several times already, but we can go over it again. The mathematical formula is "true" in the sense that humans assigned values to the parameters and they predictably prove themselves to the satisfaction of our perceptions. But what if our perceptions are incorrect or invalid? Cleary anyone can see that 2 cats + 2 dogs do not equal 4 cats or 4 dogs. In the subatomic environment, we can see that 2 electrons + 2 electrons may equal 4 electrons, but it may not. It could equal 5 electrons if one of the electrons exists in two places at the same time, or it may equal 3 electrons if one has disappeared from existence. Electrons can exist, not exist, or double exist. So you can't always "prove" that 2+2=4, even though it logically makes sense that it should.

"Logic" also doesn't equal "proof" as much as you want to claim that it does. The term "logic" is a human construct of philosophical thought. It's an ancient Greek word which means: "pertaining to speech or reason." Now we all understand that "reasoning" is simply humans examining possibilities, weighing the options or dismissing implausibles, and formulating an idea or thought. Why would an omniscient God have any use for such a thing? God doesn't need to contemplate the options or formulate an idea or thought if God is omniscient. So God really has no purpose for logic, it's merely a man-made construct of thought. Yet you argue that God didn't create logic, even though God created humans and human thought. Frankly, this is asinine.

But then... you've proven to be pretty asinine.

I don't need you to tell me why 2+2=4 is true, why it is logically impossible for a finite mind to say "God the Creator doesn't exist" without contradicting yourself and proving the opposite is true in logic. You just admitted these things are logically true. You said these things were logically true before. Axioms are axioms. Logical proofs in math and in thought or spoken language are logical proofs. Logic proves or disproves things. If you're going to start taking like an idiot and say that logic doesn't prove things are true tell that to idiots like Fancy Pants, not me, cult leader . Fancy Pants will believe you because Fancy Pants is a gullible fool, can't think for herself, didn't pay attention in school and is an ignoramus. If you're going to talk like an intelligent, educated person and make sense by saying that what logic proves to be true in our minds and in the temporal world might not be true ultimately in the spiritual world then I'll agree. But, hey, it might be true that pigs will spout wings some day and fly or that something can come from nothing too right? That's all you’re saying, idiot. Otherwise, go screw your brainwashed hoes and bros in your little cult following at home, cult leader.

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately. Can't do that can you, cult leader? Every time you try, logic proves that the laws of logic must be true ultimately. There's no getting around that. Isn't that right, cult leader?

Again, you go off the deep end claiming I have said things I didn't say and taking a position contrary to the position you previously took. It's like you're psychotic.

I don't know or care who "fancy pants" is, and couldn't care less about your latest obsession with denigrating someone who doesn't agree with you. I've already demonstrated how your concepts of "logic" are often completely untrue. Logic once told you that if you sailed too far west you'd fall off the earth. Aristotle used logic to say that things slow down because they become tired. Things have gravity because they long to be near earth. Things have levity because they want to be in the heavens. These were based on sheer human logic at the time and all proven to be incorrect by Issac Newton. So just because your human logic says something should be true, doesn't mean that it's always true.

I'm really sorry if you are too stupid to get that. I can't fix stupid.

A psychotic cult leader calling those who hold to logical truth psychotic. Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately. Can't do that can you, cult leader? Every time you try, logic proves that the laws of logic must be true ultimately. There's no getting around that. Isn't that right, cult leader?


Headline: Psychotic Cult Leader Spouts His Psychotic Pseudoscience Again!

These were based on sheer human logic at the time and all proven to be incorrect by Issac Newton. So just because your human logic says something should be true, doesn't mean that it's always true.

Nope. Science is not directly based on the laws of logic. It's ultimately based on the laws of logic. In science, there's a middle man, empirical data, which is inductively processed to extract inferences of probability only, not absolutes. The inferences are always subject to revision or falsification. That's why the conclusions, not the laws of logic, of inductive reasoning are always less sure than the conclusions, not the laws of logic, of syllogistic, deductive reasoning, which is always true when properly based on rational/mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems, or mostly true when based on well-established empirical perceptions and theories . Sometimes information is wrong or incomplete. Sometimes logical fallacies go undetected. But the laws of logic, which are the things used to detect bad information, incomplete information or logical fallacies, are never wrong! The laws of logic that are always right hold that all of these things are necessarily true, and the laws of logic are proven to be true intuitively and have been proven to be true over and over again by the realities of historical experience.

Newton's theories of motion are true up to a point, but they are not always or universally true as previously thought because of insufficient knowledge, not because the laws of logic are wrong, cult leader. The laws of logic are always right, cult leader. Data and the laws of logic that are always right are not the same thing, cult leader. Your argument all messed up because it makes data and the laws of logic that are always right the same thing when they are not the same thing, cult leader. See, I been reading and thinking real hard about what Rawlings has been proving to be right on this thread. He knows what he's talking about. You relativist clowns don't know what you're talking about. Now thank me for straightening you out, cult leader.

LMAO @ "Laws" of logic! Now they are no longer "God's Logic" but "LAWS of Logic!" Oooooo! We must never question the LAW! No matter what we think, it's the LAW! This special pleading has gotten way out of hand with you two. There is no "law of logic" which supersedes God the Creator. Like I said, if God wants 2+2=5 then you will instantaneously understand that is logical and any previous understanding will be as if it never existed. God has that kind of power. For all WE know, 2+2=3 yesterday and that memory has been replaced by 2+2=4 today... can you prove that's not true? The arrow of time could have stopped for 50 million years while God cleaned the wax out of His ears and we have no recollection of it happening because God "paused" time.

Human logic (the ONLY kind) is based on human perception, which is often times wrong or incomplete. As I demonstrated before... Logic was wrong about things with gravity, sailing to the west, etc. Now you are trying to write Logic a big pass and say the "data" was flawed, that's why we fucked up and made the wrong logical conclusions. Well no one was saying you could logically sail around the world but the data says you'll fall off the edge. Logic is ONLY based on human perception, nothing else. And human perception is not infallible.

Poor Boss, reduced to the banalities of Hollie and Company. You don't even address the substance anymore. You even contradict what you argued earlier against Amrchaos' nonsense: Of course subatomic particles, including electrons, are what they are, just like any other existent, via the law of identity. Of course Amrchaos is an idiot. You knew that, Boss. You stood for common sense and real science for a brief moment. Oh, you burned so bight, Boss! I had to put on my shades. But then, I guess, the years of substance abuse overcame you, you veered off course and flew too close to the Sun.

Oh, how low you've fallen, Boss, all the way down to the level of the dregs. So after talking your way into the cramped and slimy corner of sheer piggish pride, you're reduced to contradicting yourself when you were still making sense. But, of course, that was before the ramifications of the truths you formally asserted dawned on you. That was before you came face-to-face with the dreadful stupidity of your irredeemable relativism, the shame to end all shams.

Alas, poor Boss, alas.

Taps playing

 

[BreezeWood]

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity

No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!

Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested. How pathetic. How very sad.

The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​

Taps playing

 

[Boss]

Of course subatomic particles, including electrons, are what they are, just like any other existent, via the law of identity.

Well... No, they aren't just like any other existent. Do other things that physically exist pop into and out of existence or exist in two places at once? Or does that simply defy "logic" with other things? How can a "law of identity" apply to an electron which has become non-existent or occupying two places in space at the same time? The identity of something that doesn't exist is, it does not exist. The identity of something that exists in two places is, it has dual identity.

The ONLY reason we can define this as "logical" is because we know now that it happens. Before we knew that, we would have said that it was illogical. We can clearly see that "logic" is not something divine or infallible, but rather a construct of philosophical human thought and perception.

 

[Justin Davis]

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity

No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!

Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested. How pathetic. How very sad.

The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​

Taps playing

It would be tragic if it weren't so hilarious.

 

[Boss]

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity

No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!

Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested. How pathetic. How very sad.

The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​

Taps playing

Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?

 

[Justin Davis]

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

The organic laws of human thought are not practical. Right. Whatever you say Everlasting Noah of the Singularity.

 

[Justin Davis]

Poor Boss, reduced to the banalities of Hollie and Company. You don't even address the substance anymore. You even contradict what you argued earlier against Amrchaos' nonsense: Of course subatomic particles, including electrons, are what they are, just like any other existent, via the law of identity. Of course Amrchaos is an idiot. You knew that, Boss. You stood for common sense and real science for a brief moment. Oh, you burned so bight, Boss! I had to put on my shades. But then, I guess, the years of substance abuse overcame you, you veered off course and flew too close to the Sun.

Oh, how low you've fallen, Boss, all the way down to the level of the dregs. So after talking your way into the cramped and slimy corner of sheer piggish pride, you're reduced to contradicting yourself when you were still making sense. But, of course, that was before the ramifications of the truths you formally asserted dawned on you. That was before you came face-to-face with the dreadful stupidity of your irredeemable relativism, the shame to end all shams.

Alas, poor Boss, alas.

Taps playing

And he went with this headline, poor sap: "Psychotic Cult Leader Spouts His Psychotic Pseudoscience Again!"

 

[Justin Davis]

Hey, Boss, how about addressing the substance of this directly.

Nope. Science is not directly based on the laws of logic. It's ultimately based on the laws of logic. In science, there's a middle man, empirical data, which is inductively processed to extract inferences of probability only, not absolutes. The inferences are always subject to revision or falsification. That's why the conclusions, not the laws of logic, of inductive reasoning are always less sure than the conclusions, not the laws of logic, of syllogistic, deductive reasoning, which is always true when properly based on rational/mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems, or mostly true when based on well-established empirical perceptions and theories . Sometimes information is wrong or incomplete. Sometimes logical fallacies go undetected. But the laws of logic, which are the things used to detect bad information, incomplete information or logical fallacies, are never wrong! The laws of logic that are always right hold that all of these things are necessarily true, and the laws of logic are proven to be true intuitively and have been proven to be true over and over again by the realities of historical experience.

Newton's theories of motion are true up to a point, but they are not always or universally true as previously thought because of insufficient knowledge, not because the laws of logic are wrong, cult leader. The laws of logic are always right, cult leader. Data and the laws of logic that are always right are not the same thing, cult leader. Your argument all messed up because it makes data and the laws of logic that are always right the same thing when they are not the same thing, cult leader. See, I been reading and thinking real hard about what Rawlings has been proving to be right on this thread. He knows what he's talking about. You relativist clowns don't know what you're talking about. Now thank me for straightening you out, cult leader.

 

[BreezeWood]

BreezeWood's Fifteen Minutes of Fame

BreezeWood: Hi, my name's BreezeWood. I believe in the Everlasting, but not really, because I don't really know what that is, but it's got something to be with Noah and all that stuff . . . you know, whatever. Something came before the Singularity or maybe it was after . . . but, you know, whatever.

Christians are really evil people and stuff. They're poop-poop heads. I don't like them. I had a dream once in which this Christian was talking to Noah and suddenly the Singularity butted in and handed the Christian a flower.

And do you know what happened to the flower in the hand of that evil, poop-poop head Christian?

No. Tell me what happened

It wilted.

And do you know what happened after that?

No. Tell me what happened.

Well, then the Singularity handed Noah a flower.

And do you know what happened to the flower?

No. Tell me what happened.

It changed into a tree and grew really big just like that. It was like magic . . . or whatever.

And do you know what happened after that?

Uh . . . no, BreezeWood. This is your dream. Tells me what happened.

Oh, that's right. Giggle

Noah raised his hand and spoke to the tree.

And do you know what happened after that?

No!

The leaves blew off it's branches and from these leaves other trees sprung out of the ground . . . and then their leaves blew off their branches . . . and more trees sprung up . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and . . .

Whack

Oh, sorry. Giggle This went on and on until there was a whole forest of trees as far as the eye could see . . . and then Noah raised his hand and told the trees to stop making more trees, and they stopped. It was like magic . . . or whatever.

And do you know what happened after that?

Did someone slap the silly out of you, BreezeWood?

Oh, no. Noah was very nice to me. But that Christian gave me a dirty look.

And do you know what happened after that?

I said, do you know what happened after that?

Did the Christian try to kill you, BreezeWood?

Oh, no. That nice man Noah wouldn't let him. But he did give me another dirty look.

Do you want me to tell you what happened after that?

Would it stop you if I said no?

Oh, no. Giggle

Uh-huh. So what happened, BreezeWood?

Well, the Christian and Noah started cutting down the trees and rendering their trunks into lumber.

And do you know what they did with all that lumber?

I said, do you know what they did with all that lumber?

No. But I know what I'm going to do with my fist if you ask me another question, BreezeWood. This is your dream, BreezeWood. Don't ask anymore questions. Just tell me the story of your dream or die.

Oh, that's right. Giggle I forgot.

They built an Ark. And do you know. . . . Giggle I mean, all the animals of the Earth, one male and one female, came and went into the Ark, and the Christian counted the animals as they went into the Ark and gave the tally to Noah. And then Noah took a club and smashed it over the head of the Christian, which made me very happy, because Christians are evil poop-poop heads. And then it started to rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and . . .

Whack

Oh, sorry. Giggle Well, Noah and all the animals on the Ark were just fine, but the whole wide world was flooded and everything else died. Then the waters receded and the Ark came to rest on a mountain top . . . and Noah and the animals came out of the Ark and had life everlasting. And the best part is that there were no more poop-poop head Christians around ever again because they all died in the Flood. This made me very happy because Christians are evil poop-poop heads. Giggle

What happened to the Singularity?

The Singularity died too. Giggle

The End.

.
as pointed out before there is no practical purpose to your posts.

.

 

[Justin Davis]

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity

No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!

Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested. How pathetic. How very sad.

The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​

Taps playing

Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?

Reduced to the cred of that imbecile Fancy Pants. Why, Boss? Why did you do it? Why did you not jump the ship of relativism when you had the chance?
And this for the inscription on your headstone, poor sap: "Psychotic Cult Leader Spouts His Psychotic Pseudoscience Again!" We even tossed you a line.

 

[Justin Davis]

.
as pointed out before there is no practical purpose to your posts.

.

So says the Everlasting Noah of the Singularity.

 

[Hollie]

The Four Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!


I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.

Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.

The Four Refusals:

1. "I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

2. "I refuse to believe what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

3. "I don't care what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

4. "The formal axioms of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were, 2 + 2 = 4 would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!​

The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are not logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, a priori axioms of human cognition, Emily!

Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!

These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!

Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.

Does that come with a jingle?

 

[Hollie]

The Cultish, Self-Deluded and Self-Brainwashed Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap, has Nothing but My Utter Contempt Now!


Bottom line: your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot! Indeed, there's no way in hell that BreezeWood could sensibly agree with you. Your notion would directly overthrow pantheism/panentheism!

And, in the meantime, Amrchaos just exposed the irrationality of your notion . . . though he himself doesn't grasp the full ramifications, i.e., that he just proved the cognitive facts of the TAG regarding God's existence and the necessity that God bestowed His logic on us; more at, we cannot rationally explain how the logic we have would not universally hold. There has to be an all-encompassing "operating system," Boss, whether it be nature or God.

Just because you can't apprehend that the denial of that is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves the opposite of what you irrationally claim to be true is your problem, not mine. The fact that you necessarily, indeed, that we all must necessarily, presuppose that the laws of thought universally hold at all levels of being whenever we assert anything at all just flies right over your head.

That's your problem, not mine.

Indeed, self-deluded one, even seallybobo, GT and others instinctively understand that. The reality of the matter is that everyone of us rejected your crazy subjective-objective dichotomy and your 2 + 2 = 4 analogy earlier on this thread.


We all know that's true. You know that's true. And Emily does not agree with you either, self-deluded one, on this point.

I can go back and quote the posts in which seallybobo, GT, Justin, I and others, including even Hollie, amazingly enough, one of the few things she's gotten right, in which we all refuted you . . . so stop pretending that your bull is flying around here. GT also knows this to be true on the basis of our joint refutation of QW's computer analogy which is essentially the very same bullshit.

Everybody on this board knows that your split, incoherent paradigm for cognitive reality has been devastatingly refuted by me, whether one believes God exists or not.

Your cult of two has been exposed as a total fraud of meaningless prattle.

 

[Justin Davis]

He isn't even a clever troll. Trolls can be entertaining but these two are just silly. Long winded speeches, that isn't how you troll

And it took you all of two seconds to close your mind again. That's a record even for you. But what am I talking about? You don't have a mind at all, much less one that's open.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
not a shred of practicality to be found ...

they fail in a swirling downward spin of utter mediocrity to a finalie of oblivion.

.

 

[Boss]

Newton's theories of motion are true up to a point, but they are not always or universally true as previously thought because of insufficient knowledge, not because the laws of logic are wrong, cult leader. The laws of logic are always right, cult leader.

No, the human logic was wrong and proven wrong. Period. What you are trying to do now is make Logic=Truth, and that is simply another attempt to elevate human logic to a superior status it doesn't deserve. Logic doesn't equal Truth any more than Logic equals God. Logic is a philosophical construct of human thought, which can be (and often is) incorrect. I've already demonstrated this, and you simply ignore it, build a caveat for it, and continue on in your rant-fest.

As for who is a "cult figure" here, that would be you and Rawlings. No one else is agreeing with you on any of this. Now... why don't you go do something "constructive" with your time... like, build an idol to Rawlings out of your mashed potatoes?