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

[emilynghiem]

I'm not pushing anyone to do anything.

They made a CLAIM that they've proven god.

ive looked into the whole spiritual healing thing, and its all hearsay. not proof. at best it can be shaken down to peculiar coincidence. at worst, its simply rational science we've yet to understand. until god comes in my face and says "hey!! its me!! i did this!!," the spiritual healing thing is NOT sufficient evidence for anyone serious about their discovery. attributing the healing to "god" is a CHOICE you make, it is not PROOF he did it.

1. since God cannot be proven that's where I suggest then to redirect
this claim to proving Spiritual Healing works naturally effectively and universally for people of all or no faith.
it works by forgiveness and that can be shown by science, statistics, studies whatever.

They can still prove a claim, but select an angle that can actually be demonstrated with science! so this would solve the problems on both sides.

2. RE: looked into the whole spiritual healing thing, and its all hearsay. not proof.

This is why I am pushing for medical research and proof! Exactly!
It's never been fully established as other things like the laws of gravity or
the process of dreaming at night that is taken for granted as naturally occurring
(though different for all people and not proveable). Dreaming is not considered hearsay,
yet we can never prove what we or others dreamed, we take it on faith that's what someone said.

How do you expect research to appear if nobody does it?
That's why I'm asking to organize support to push for this.

if EVERY atheist/nontheist/Buddhist etc. even liberals who question reparative/conversion therapy claiming to heal
homosexuality
DEMANDED that instead of pushing the Bible
PLEASE USE SCIENCE TO PROVE SPIRITUAL HEALING
then maybe it would get done if enough people pour support into it

So maybe I will start an online petition
That if this can be proven, then all sides agree to quit pushing religion by preaching to the wrong choir
and start using science and spiritual healing to reach those audiences.
You are welcome to preach and sing in church to people of that culture.
But for the secular nontheists, please use science and apply spiritual healing
based on FORGIVENESS which we can prove works!

The problem with preaching is when it is not based on Forgiveness but Fear.
Hmmmm. Maybe that's the equivalent of the TAG proof....coming from the other side and meeting in the middle....

If the Christian outreach is based on Forgiveness and healing then it works.
if the outreach is based on fear and condemnation it may work through some phases (to scare people into submission)
but fails at other stages and still needs to be completed by Forgiveness and healing anyway.
Maybe I could write that up and present to M.D. and Justin for judicial review....

Thanks G.T. you've given me some better ideas
getting closer, we'll see what it leads to.

 

[emilynghiem]

TAG is an absurdity.
'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.

Yes, I believe the point is to work backwards.

I am guessing that M.D. did not arrive at this point until AFTER he went through his process
of reaching his understanding of God, and now he is working backwards:
presenting the conclusion, then when all the objections come up
going through the similar process of RESOLVING them all to reach an agreement at the end.

There is a bigger process AROUND TAG, and that process is universal, including all people,
but what M.D. doesn't get is that it is RELATIVE to each person and that's okay, too.

he is not okay with the idea that things can be relative and universal/absolutes too
and neither is Justin. So they are not done with their process either, and their objections
to how this "relative approach business can still lead to universal agreement:
are also coming up to be resolved equally!

BreezeWood also does not see how prayer or Christian God/beliefs can be part of a spiritual process
leading to the same higher place.

it doesnt matter which way he worked, TAG doesnt work regardless because it claims to prove something unprovable.

hence faith.

Yes, I pointed out to MD that the people who can follow and agree on TAG points already believe in God.

What I see TAG used for is like baiting,
all the people who DON'T agree express objections to why they don't believe in God.

so all these issues come up to be resolved.

If they are all resolved, then the default position is to be at peace with each other's beliefs
and not push this way or that way.

So all people would be okay with MD having his TAG proof to share with his friends who think that way.
Any objections would be resolved.

M.D. doesn't see this bigger process but only sees his part which is to focus on TAG.

I like the idea of writing up an online petition to ask these faith-based believers
to invest in medical research to prove spiritual healing using science
and then use that to reach atheists, nontheists and others and quit using these methods that don't work.

I am happy to draft it, and have you Hollie and whoever else edit and finalize it in secular terms that are clearly mainstream,
maybe Sealybobo and my friends on another forum who have asked to see medical proof of this.

 

[Hollie]

By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively...

Boss is certainly NOT refuted. God is omnipotent, God created everything. To form ANY argument to the contrary, is to insist that God cannot be omnipotent or omniscient. You're free to believe in THAT God, but you have not refuted MY God.

You religious zealots and your hurling your various inventions of gawds at each other - it's like watching a bunch of 12 year olds fighting over a toy.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Seven Things™
1. We exist!

2. The cosmological order exists!

3. The idea that God exists in our minds as the Creator of everything else that exists; hence, the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out!

4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, for no creature could be greater than the Creator!

5. Currently, science cannot verify or falsify God's existence!

6. On the very fact of it, it is not logically possible for a finite being to say or think that God the Creator doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not!

See Posts:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242874/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242893/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/​

7. All six of the above things are objectively and universally true for human knowers/thinkers due to the absolute, incontrovertible laws of thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle!


I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

These are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for God's existence.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow or will even try.

But what we all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the actuality behind the construct of God of human cognition would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite beings are in no position to presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be a presumptuously subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do comprehend the prospect of the highest conceivable standard of perfection for divine attribution whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent consciousness of self-aware personhood, a Being of absolute perfection and infinitely unparalleled greatness.

No one escapes The Seven Things™.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

See Posts:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242893/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/


The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that knowledge can exist when God the Creator doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to leave the term God the Creator out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God the Creator doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God the Creator doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God the Creator doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10014560/

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presuppositional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, the Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God the Creator doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence

See Post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242874/.

The TAG is rock solid! No learned logician doubts this, and certainly no serious Christian apologists doubts this. In fact, it is the Bible's primary argument for God's existence, repeated over and over again. It cannot be negated. It's an unimpeachable axiom, and it's alternate form is an unimpeachable proof for the biological universality and, arguably, for the spiritual universality of the laws of thought. However, I won't go so far as to assert the latter holds objectively in an absolute sense, rather, it is compelling evidentiarily. Those Christians who don't know this have been duped by this world of dreams and darkness.

By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively:

Answering the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.


Note the attempt to overthrow: Transcendental argument - Iron Chariots Wiki.



Note the actuality of that attempt: Response to Criticism of the Transcendental Argument for God s existence Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.


What the arguer does in the second link is to constantly shift to the notion that the laws of thought are a creature rather than the very essence God, as he simply ignores the ensuring paradoxes of the contradictory world in which he tosses himself into every time he attempts to assert the very same logic, which no one escapes, against the absolute principle of identity. Also, this puts the arguer in the position of arguing against the validity of the foundational axioms, postulates and theorems indispensable to mathematics and science.

Then, the inevitable default is to impose the logical fallacies of informal logic on the axioms/tautologies of formal logic as if these were of a secondary nature to which of course these informal logical fallacies would normally apply. But we don't say that primary axioms/tautologies are logical fallacies in formal logic because whatever label you slap on them does not make their incontrovertibility go away. They simply hold true every time we think or say them. It's impossible to think of them as being anything else but true!

The axioms and tautologies of human cognition are not of a secondary nature; informal logical fallacies do not apply to them.

In other words, 2 + 2 = 4 presupposes that the law of addition and, by extension, multiplication, is true. We don't say, "That begs the question!" LOL! Such axioms are not of a secondary nature. Call it begging the question according to the standards of informal logic with regard to secondary propositions all you want. That does not make 2 + 2 = 4 go away.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Seven Things™
1. We exist!

2. The cosmological order exists!

3. The idea that God exists in our minds as the Creator of everything else that exists; hence, the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out!

4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, for no creature could be greater than the Creator!

5. Currently, science cannot verify or falsify God's existence!

6. On the very fact of it, it is not logically possible for a finite being to say or think that God the Creator doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not!
No one escapes The Seven Things™.

Dear M.D. which of these Seven things first led you to an understanding of God.
What was your process. Who first explained it to you and which points did they illustrate above.
Thank you!

 

[Hollie]

The Seven Things™
1. We exist!

2. The cosmological order exists!

3. The idea that God exists in our minds as the Creator of everything else that exists; hence, the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out!

4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, for no creature could be greater than the Creator!

5. Currently, science cannot verify or falsify God's existence!

6. On the very fact of it, it is not logically possible for a finite being to say or think that God the Creator doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not!

See Posts:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10236118/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10236219/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/​

7. All six of the above things are objectively and universally true for human knowers/thinkers due to the absolute, incontrovertible laws of thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle!


I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

These are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for God's existence.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow or will even try.

But what we all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the actuality behind the construct of God of human cognition would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite beings are in no position to presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be a presumptuously subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do comprehend the prospect of the highest conceivable standard of perfection for divine attribution whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent consciousness of self-aware personhood, a Being of absolute perfection and infinitely unparalleled greatness.

No one escapes The Seven Things™.

Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

The five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.


7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.


Everyone Escapes the five, no wait, it's now, Seven Fraudulent Things™

 

[Hollie]

The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence

See Post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242874/.

The TAG is rock solid! No learned logician doubts this, and certainly no serious Christian apologists doubts this. In fact, it is the Bible's primary argument for God's existence, repeated over and over again. It cannot be negated. It's an unimpeachable axiom, and it's alternate form is an unimpeachable proof for the biological universality and, arguably, for the spiritual universality of the laws of thought. However, I won't go so far as to assert the latter holds objectively in an absolute sense, rather, it is compelling evidentiarily. Those Christians who don't know this have been duped by this world of dreams and darkness.

By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively:

Answering the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.


Note the attempt to overthrow: Transcendental argument - Iron Chariots Wiki.



Note the actuality of that attempt: Response to Criticism of the Transcendental Argument for God s existence Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.


What the arguer does in the second link is to constantly shift to the notion that the laws of thought are a creature rather than the very essence God, as he simply ignores the ensuring paradoxes of the contradictory world in which he tosses himself into every time he attempts to assert the very same logic, which no one escapes, against the absolute principle of identity. Also, this puts the arguer in the position of arguing against the validity of the foundational axioms, postulates and theorems indispensable to mathematics and science.

Then, the inevitable default is to impose the logical fallacies of informal logic on the axioms/tautologies of formal logic as if these were of a secondary nature to which of course these informal logical fallacies would normally apply. But we don't say that primary axioms/tautologies are logical fallacies in formal logic because whatever label you slap on them does not make their incontrovertibility go away. They simply hold true every time we think or say them. It's impossible to think of them as being anything else but true!

The axioms and tautologies of human cognition are not of a secondary nature; informal logical fallacies do not apply to them.

In other words, 2 + 2 = 4 presupposes that the law of addition and, by extension, multiplication, is true. We don't say, "That begs the question!" LOL! Such axioms are not of a secondary nature. Call it begging the question according to the standards of informal logic with regard to secondary propositions all you want. That does not make 2 + 2 = 4 go away.

The Refutation of The Pointless and Viciously Circular TAG Nonsense.


The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
Michael Martin
http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html
[This article originally appeared in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist.]

Some Christian philosophers have made the incredible argument that logic, science and morality presuppose the truth of the Christian world view because logic, science and morality depend on the truth of this world view [1]. Advocates call this argument the Transcendental Argument for Existence of God and I will call it TAG for short. In what follows I will not attempt to refute TAG directly. Rather I will show how one can argue exactly the opposite conclusion, namely, that logic, science and morality presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view or at least the falsehood of the interpretation of his world view presupposed by TAG. I will call this argument the Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God or TANG for short.

If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not, for it is logically impossible that there be two sound arguments with contradictory conclusions. On the other hand, if TANG is unsound, it does not follow that TAG is sound. After all, both arguments could be unsound. Perhaps, logic, science, and objective morality are possible given either a Christian or a nonChristian world view. In any case, the presentation of TANG will provide an indirect challenge to TAG and force its advocates to defend their position. The burden will be on them to refute TANG. Unless they do, TAG is doomed.

How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.

Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.

Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.

There are, of course, ways to avoid the conclusions of TANG. One way is to reject logic, science and objective morality. Another is to maintain belief in God but argue that logic, science and morality are not dependent on God's existence. However, the first way is self-defeating since Christian apologists use logic to defend their position and the second way presumes that TAG is invalid since it assumes that logic, science, and morality do not assume God's existence. Finally, one can object to particular aspects of TANG, for example, the claim that there is no rational way to reconcile different interpretations of the Bible. However, this tack would involve a detailed defence of TAG--something that has yet to be provided.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.


The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Dear M.D. Rawlings is this close:

Spiritual Process of coming to terms with God

1. A person forms a relationship with someone with that understanding
(1. Receives a child of God, so receives the spirit of Christ Jesus or perfect charity, loving justice with mercy)
2. A person is called to conscience, to reconcile their understanding and will, with collective/universal truth called the will of God
(2. Whoever receives Jesus or Justice, and commits to embrace this spirit of the law by conscience, finds God)
3. In this state of conviction by conscience, the person calls or invokes the spirit of Truth or Kingdom of God
Anything asked in the name of Truth or Justice (God or Jesus) is answered or done.
^ and this is where if 2 or 3 agree by conscience or in the spirit of Christ and invoke and establish truth,
then what we do locally has a multiplied effect on the global collective conscience or humanity ^

Opposite, what causes a disconnect and has to be undone and resolved to restore the union
1. Someone doesn't forgive themselves or someone else (usually patterns repeated in families,
carried by generations, especially carried by children from parents and repeated in future relations)
2. the unforgiven/unresolved conflict is projected forward and disrupts relations with others
3. collectively this same process of denial and projection of blame is repeated
in a chain reaction creating social disorder, ills, unrest, crime violence war etc. on a global scale

These layers of unforgiven conflicts have to be forgiven, corrected and healed to
reverse the process and to restore good faith relations
1. resolving issues with oneself internally, including ones projected or connected
with parents, with close relationships etc. that trigger these internal issues to express on the surface
2. resolving mutual conflicts and problems that are shared and mirrored by other people or groups
(like on this forum, how each person has their own issues and clashes with someone with the opposite views or issues)
3. these efforts in forgiving correcting and resolving issues locally between people one on one
are then multiplied to bring peace on a larger scale for society and collectively for humanity's betterment

M.D. does this describe
how you came to an understanding of God, by sharing with others and resolving questions that came up as you interacted,
and how you wish to share this understanding with others
but you are running into conflicts because people are projecting their own issues, too?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Seven Things™ stand!

They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242861/.

 

[Hollie]

The five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ Stands as a Fraud.

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 539 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Muslim75]

I speak as a Muslim.

The rain that comes from the sky and the vast pathways in the sky above you indicate the existence of an Almighty God. This is His act, just like footprints would indicate someone who walked.

 

[Justin Davis]

The Refutation of The Pointless and Viciously Circular TAG Nonsense.


The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
Michael Martin
http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html
[This article originally appeared in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist.]

Some Christian philosophers have made the incredible argument that logic, science and morality presuppose the truth of the Christian world view because logic, science and morality depend on the truth of this world view [1]. Advocates call this argument the Transcendental Argument for Existence of God and I will call it TAG for short. In what follows I will not attempt to refute TAG directly. Rather I will show how one can argue exactly the opposite conclusion, namely, that logic, science and morality presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view or at least the falsehood of the interpretation of his world view presupposed by TAG. I will call this argument the Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God or TANG for short.

If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not, for it is logically impossible that there be two sound arguments with contradictory conclusions. On the other hand, if TANG is unsound, it does not follow that TAG is sound. After all, both arguments could be unsound. Perhaps, logic, science, and objective morality are possible given either a Christian or a nonChristian world view. In any case, the presentation of TANG will provide an indirect challenge to TAG and force its advocates to defend their position. The burden will be on them to refute TANG. Unless they do, TAG is doomed.

How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.

Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.

Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.

There are, of course, ways to avoid the conclusions of TANG. One way is to reject logic, science and objective morality. Another is to maintain belief in God but argue that logic, science and morality are not dependent on God's existence. However, the first way is self-defeating since Christian apologists use logic to defend their position and the second way presumes that TAG is invalid since it assumes that logic, science, and morality do not assume God's existence. Finally, one can object to particular aspects of TANG, for example, the claim that there is no rational way to reconcile different interpretations of the Bible. However, this tack would involve a detailed defence of TAG--something that has yet to be provided.

You idiot, Martin's idiocy was already refuted by Rawlings. It's been refuted in every one of his posts. Martin is directly refuted in his post 5386, before you even posted his idiocy. Logic and the TAG do not hold that logic or morality were created, you idiot. That’s the whole point. Martin's premise is totally false. That’s why the laws of logic and the axioms of the TAG are irrefutable. Jeez. How stupid are you? Martin is arguing against himself, you and Boss. You just proved that logic was not created, that the TAG is true. You idiots don't read or think about anything.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

TAG is an absurdity.
'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.

God did not create EVERYTHING, you retard. That notion on the very face of it is stupid. Look everybody, now the idiots are arguing that God had no knowledge before He created knowledge. Gee. I wonder where God got the knowledge to create knowledge?

MORONS!

God did not create knowledge, you retard. God did not create the laws of logic or morality, you retard. Recall, retard? You and I refuted QW's irrationalism on that very point! Recall the dozens of posts of mine refuting QW and Boss on that very point, you depraved sociopath, GT?

No major philosophical or theological system of thought in history has ever held such an imbecilic notion precisely because it is imbecilic, precisely because such a notion is logically untenable. Insofar as he holds to the laws of logic, Martin is making the very same argument as I which utterly annihilates your stupidity regarding the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy, Amrchaos' stupidity regarding the order of primacy in physics, QW's stupidity regarding the order of primacy between logic and science, Boss’ stupidity regarding the origin and nature of the laws of thought. . . .

Notwithstanding, the laws of logic, the TAG, the Bible and Christianity DO NOT hold that God created everything! In that regard, Martin is an utter retard too, a historically illiterate buffoon.

The TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" holds that "God created everything, including logic"?!

Crickets chirping

Oh? Really? Where is Christianity, Martin's imaginary "brand of Christianity" or any other religion, for that matter, mentioned in the TAG?

Crickets chirping

Where exactly does the TAG assert that God created knowledge?

Crickets chirping

Martin just declares out of nowhere that the TAG, the Bible and Christianity hold that God created everything.

Really? And where in Martin's argument is this bizarre claim evidentiarily substantiated?

Crickets chirping

This moron might as well say that the moon is made out of cheese; therefore, the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" holds that God created everything, including logic.

You're all friggin' sociopaths, pathological liars! You too, Boss! You just got refuted again, by Hollie and Martin who think they're refuting the TAG. But, of course, Martin's argument is just another counterargument that in reality is yet another inherently contradictory, self-negating premise that positively proves in organic/classical logic that (1) God must exist and (2) God must be the Principle of Identity Himself. Hence, God did not create the laws of logic. Rather, they are the eternally existent laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind!

You're all friggin's morons of the first order, refuting yourselves at every turn.

Relativists.

LOL!

 

[Hollie]

The Refutation of The Pointless and Viciously Circular TAG Nonsense.


The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
Michael Martin
http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html
[This article originally appeared in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist.]

Some Christian philosophers have made the incredible argument that logic, science and morality presuppose the truth of the Christian world view because logic, science and morality depend on the truth of this world view [1]. Advocates call this argument the Transcendental Argument for Existence of God and I will call it TAG for short. In what follows I will not attempt to refute TAG directly. Rather I will show how one can argue exactly the opposite conclusion, namely, that logic, science and morality presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view or at least the falsehood of the interpretation of his world view presupposed by TAG. I will call this argument the Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God or TANG for short.

If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not, for it is logically impossible that there be two sound arguments with contradictory conclusions. On the other hand, if TANG is unsound, it does not follow that TAG is sound. After all, both arguments could be unsound. Perhaps, logic, science, and objective morality are possible given either a Christian or a nonChristian world view. In any case, the presentation of TANG will provide an indirect challenge to TAG and force its advocates to defend their position. The burden will be on them to refute TANG. Unless they do, TAG is doomed.

How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.

Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.

Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.

There are, of course, ways to avoid the conclusions of TANG. One way is to reject logic, science and objective morality. Another is to maintain belief in God but argue that logic, science and morality are not dependent on God's existence. However, the first way is self-defeating since Christian apologists use logic to defend their position and the second way presumes that TAG is invalid since it assumes that logic, science, and morality do not assume God's existence. Finally, one can object to particular aspects of TANG, for example, the claim that there is no rational way to reconcile different interpretations of the Bible. However, this tack would involve a detailed defence of TAG--something that has yet to be provided.

You idiot, Martin's idiocy was already refuted by Rawlings. It's been refuted in every one of his posts. Martin is directly refuted in his post 5386, before you even posted his idiocy. Logic and the TAG do not hold that logic or morality were created, you idiot. That’s the whole point. Martin's premise is totally false. That’s why the laws of logic and the axioms of the TAG are irrefutable. Jeez. How stupid are you? Martin is arguing against himself, you and Boss. You just proved that logic was not created, that the TAG is true. You idiots don't read or think about anything.

There's a lot of idiot in your posts.

Rawling refuted nothing. TAG is pointless and viciously circular.

How odd that your pointless and juvenile name-calling lacks any substance.

TANG stands as a thorough refutation to you, Mr. Sock.

 

[Hollie]

TAG is an absurdity.
'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.

God did not create EVERYTHING, you retard. That notion on the very face of it is stupid. Look everybody, now the idiots are arguing that God had no knowledge before He created knowledge. Gee. I wonder where God got the knowledge to create knowledge?

MORONS!

God did not create knowledge, you retard. God did not create the laws of logic or morality, you retard. Recall, retard? You and I refuted QW's irrationalism on that very point! Recall the dozens of posts of mine refuting QW and Boss on that very point, you depraved sociopath, GT?

No major philosophical or theological system of thought in history has ever held such an imbecilic notion precisely because it is imbecilic, precisely because such a notion is logically untenable. Insofar as he holds to the laws of logic, Martin is making the very same argument as I which utterly annihilates your stupidity regarding the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy, Amrchaos' stupidity regarding the order of primacy in physics, QW's stupidity regarding the order of primacy between logic and science, Boss’ stupidity regarding the origin and nature of the laws of thought. . . .

Notwithstanding, the laws of logic, the TAG, the Bible and Christianity DO NOT hold that God created everything! In that regard, Martin is an utter retard too, a historically illiterate buffoon.

The TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" holds that "God created everything, including logic"?!

Crickets chirping

Oh? Really? Where is Christianity, Martin's imaginary "brand of Christianity" or any other religion, for that matter, mentioned in the TAG?

Crickets chirping

Where exactly does the TAG assert that God created knowledge?

Crickets chirping

Martin just declares out of nowhere that the TAG, the Bible and Christianity hold that God created everything.

Really? And where in Martin's argument is this bizarre claim evidentiarily substantiated?

Crickets chirping

This moron might as well say that the moon is made out of cheese; therefore, the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" holds that God created everything, including logic.

You're all friggin' sociopaths, pathological liars! You too, Boss! You just got refuted again, by Hollie and Martin who think they're refuting the TAG. But, of course, Martin's argument is just another counterargument that in reality is yet another inherently contradictory, self-negating premise that positively proves in organic/classical logic that (1) God must exist and (2) God must be the Principle of Identity Himself. Hence, God did not create the laws of logic. Rather, they are the eternally existent laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind!

You're all friggin's morons of the first order, refuting yourself at every turn.

Relativists.

LOL!

There is no reason to accept to your pointless and unsupported claim that your polytheistic gawds created anything.

Your juvenile cutting and pasting is a waste of time.

Do yourself a favor, Laddie. Drink the Kool Aid.

 

[Hollie]

The Refutation of The Pointless and Viciously Circular TAG Nonsense.


The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
Michael Martin
The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
[This article originally appeared in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist.]

Some Christian philosophers have made the incredible argument that logic, science and morality presuppose the truth of the Christian world view because logic, science and morality depend on the truth of this world view [1]. Advocates call this argument the Transcendental Argument for Existence of God and I will call it TAG for short. In what follows I will not attempt to refute TAG directly. Rather I will show how one can argue exactly the opposite conclusion, namely, that logic, science and morality presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view or at least the falsehood of the interpretation of his world view presupposed by TAG. I will call this argument the Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God or TANG for short.

If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not, for it is logically impossible that there be two sound arguments with contradictory conclusions. On the other hand, if TANG is unsound, it does not follow that TAG is sound. After all, both arguments could be unsound. Perhaps, logic, science, and objective morality are possible given either a Christian or a nonChristian world view. In any case, the presentation of TANG will provide an indirect challenge to TAG and force its advocates to defend their position. The burden will be on them to refute TANG. Unless they do, TAG is doomed.

How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.

Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.

Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.

There are, of course, ways to avoid the conclusions of TANG. One way is to reject logic, science and objective morality. Another is to maintain belief in God but argue that logic, science and morality are not dependent on God's existence. However, the first way is self-defeating since Christian apologists use logic to defend their position and the second way presumes that TAG is invalid since it assumes that logic, science, and morality do not assume God's existence. Finally, one can object to particular aspects of TANG, for example, the claim that there is no rational way to reconcile different interpretations of the Bible. However, this tack would involve a detailed defence of TAG--something that has yet to be provided.





LOL! M. Pompous Rawling is again refuted.


LOL! The pointless TAG is again refuted. LOL!


LOL! M. Pompous Rawling again slithers away in shame. LOL!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

TANG stands as a thorough refutation to you, Mr. Sock.

YOU MORON! MARTIN'S PREMISE IS THAT IT IS IRRATIONL TO HOLD THAT GOD CREATED EVERYTHING, INCLUDING LOGIC!

I agree! It is irrational, logically untenable, to hold that God created everything, including logic.
Everything I've written on this thread refutes that imbecilic notion. The TAG refutes that imbecilic notion.

Except for his made up bullshit out of thin are, Martin's argument substantiates the TAG. He refutes himself, all of you and Boss in particular.

Neither the laws of logic, the TAG, the Bible, Christianity, indeed, nor any major philosophical and theological system of thought in history, including pantheism/panentheism, holds that God created everything, let alone any aspect of knowledge.

Insofar as the TAG is concerned, Martin’s argument is refuted before it even gets off the ground.

There is no such thing as a TAG or a "brand of Christianity" that holds God created everything, including logic, you drooling retard. Martin is a liar.

 

[Hollie]

TANG stands as a thorough refutation to you, Mr. Sock.

YOU MORON! MARTIN'S PREMISE IS THAT GOD CREATED EVERYTHING, INCLUDING LOGIC!

Except for his made up bullshit out of thin are, Martin's argument substantiates the TAG. He refutes himself, all of you and Boss in particular.

Neither the laws of logic, the TAG, the Bible, Christianity, indeed, nor any major philosophical and theological system of thought in history holds that God created everything, let alone any aspect of knowledge.

Martin’s argument is refuted before it even gets off the ground.

There is no such thing as a TAG or a "brand of Christianity" that holds God created everything, including logic, you drooling retard.

TANG stands as a thorough refutation to the pointless and viciously circular TAG argument.

TAG is refuted by those who suggest it is anything but viciously circular.

Your x-tian gawds are "creators" of everything - Not.

Your "brand" of christianity is valid - Not.


TAG is a bust, LOL,