The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God Stands!
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!
Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
- Thread starter newpolitics
- Start date
The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God Stands!
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!
That doesn't make me a bad person.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Holle is a Depraved, Rabid Dog
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 crap 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, hower, 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.
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 crap 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, hower, 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.
What a meltdown his post was. I stopped reading after the second "retard" lolol
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,
Just having a little fun with the boy.
BreezeWood
VIP Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 19,264
- 1,585
- 85
.
... bestowed on mankind!
you are a pathological delusionist endemic of self gratuitous idolatry before the Living Being, the Everlasting and the Triumphal Champion of Good vs Evil, The Almighty God.
.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Michael Martin: God created everything, including logic!
GT and Hollie: Yeah. Like, wow, what he said.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Michael Martin: God created everything, including logic!
GT and Hollie and BreezeWood: Yeah. Like, wow, what he said.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men!
1. Hollie: I do not understand the difference between science and my fanatical belief in the spaghetti monsters of materialistic metaphysics!
2. Hollie: I never realized that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old!
3. Hollie: If God created the universe, why didn't He create the space shuttle?
4. Hollie: Since humans and dinosaurs apparently didn't roam the Earth at the same time, why I am I asking why we don't find dinosaur and human fossils in the same layer of geological stratum?
5. Hollie: Derp-derp. La-la. Hiccup Burp Blah-blah. I'm slap happy out of my mind 97% of the time. The other 3% of the time, I'm comatose.
6. Hollie: Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically and philosophically accepted, respectively, as gravity and photosynthesis, am I right about the age of the Earth, the existence of gravity and the processes of photosynthesis while I mindlessly follow authority regarding a biological theory of speciation that's premised on the gratuitous presupposition of a rationally and empirically indemonstrable a priority of metaphysical naturalism? I know. Let's ask Rawlings:
7. Hollie: How many times have the skeptics' objections been falsified by the archeological and textual record in history? I don't know, but perhaps I should be asking that question instead.
8. Hollie: Have I ever made any sense about anything? I don't think so, but I'll keep trying.
9. Hollie: I don't know much about science at all, really, and even less about the history and methodology of biblical hermeneutics, but I don't mind being wrong most of the time because being wrong is what I do best.
10. Hollie: I have no idea how many of the hundreds of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in history thus far, but I'll keep asking this same question and disregard the astronomically staggering mathematical odds against the prospect of all these prophecies being fulfilled thus far to the letter if they were not revealed by on omniscient Deity.
1. Hollie: I do not understand the difference between science and my fanatical belief in the spaghetti monsters of materialistic metaphysics!
2. Hollie: I never realized that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old!
3. Hollie: If God created the universe, why didn't He create the space shuttle?
4. Hollie: Since humans and dinosaurs apparently didn't roam the Earth at the same time, why I am I asking why we don't find dinosaur and human fossils in the same layer of geological stratum?
5. Hollie: Derp-derp. La-la. Hiccup Burp Blah-blah. I'm slap happy out of my mind 97% of the time. The other 3% of the time, I'm comatose.
6. Hollie: Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically and philosophically accepted, respectively, as gravity and photosynthesis, am I right about the age of the Earth, the existence of gravity and the processes of photosynthesis while I mindlessly follow authority regarding a biological theory of speciation that's premised on the gratuitous presupposition of a rationally and empirically indemonstrable a priority of metaphysical naturalism? I know. Let's ask Rawlings:
First, with regard to the Creationist’s perspective, the correct term is micro-speciation, not microevolution. And while many millions of generations of fruit flies have undergone micro-speciation in the laboratory, not a single one of them has ever underwent macroevolution. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. There's a vast difference between the changes that occur within species and the transmutation of species. The rest is just talk, the party line of evolutionary theory. And that’s the crux of the matter, isn't it? We have before us the idea that all species evolved from a common ancestor . . . one that is driven by yet another idea, the underlying metaphysical presupposition of a materialistic naturalism.
. . . The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. There's nothing necessary about it. And given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being. The record would look the same.
. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. To characterize my interpretation of the evidence as an error begs the question and mistakes the arrows for something they're not, i.e., the artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.
. . . Pointing to a small handful of groupings of allegedly related lineages consisting of an equally small handful of intermediate forms, which is the best that evolutionists have ever been able to come up with out of millions of fossils, does not impress me. . . . The number of changes required and the degree of complexity involved, for example, in the enterprise of transforming a land animal into a sea animal, or vice versa, are immense. Just how many transitional forms are we talking about here? Such a splash didn't take place in one dive. It involved every system—skeletal, respiratory, digestive, reproductive, circulatory, integumentary, lymphatic . . . the transitional migration of a snout into a blowhole on the top of the head!
Are we talking about thousands of transitional forms? Tens of thousands? Multiply that by millions of species.
I'm well acquainted with the rhetoric that evolutionists invoke regarding the dearth of plausible intermediate forms in the fossil record, like how we would not expect "to find . . . half-bat/half-bird intermediate forms in the fossil record", as it was sardonically put by an evolutionist recently.
Oh? And why not?
The early Darwinists, including Darwin himself, certainly expected them and were perplexed by their absence. And what's Neo-Darwinism anyway, really, but a collection of attempts (including punctuated equilibrium) to explain why we don't see them.
It was and remains a serious problem for the theory, one which evolutionists themselves are actively trying to resolve. It's just that the theory's leading lights tend not to talk about it frankly or very often. The rest is just double-speak. In the meantime, they think to turn this problem into a smear against the skeptics who raise it, that is, against those who keep resurrecting the bone they want to keep buried. Moreover, in spite of the standard meaning of "change" in evolutionary theory, with which I am well acquainted from a purely theoretical perspective and do understand . . . a scheme of common ancestry necessarily does entail transmutation.
In accordance with your confirmation of my point about fruit flies, we can't observe speciation beyond the microevolutionary steps and, also, we don't see an abundance of obvious transitory forms in the fossil record, so what's Darwinism (the gratuitous insertion or extrapolation of a common ancestry) ultimately based on, if not a materialistic naturalism? There's nothing in the observable and quantifiable compositions and processes of biological systems that is at odds with the fundamentals of Creationism. Hence, as for the regnant scientific community's a prior bias, what is the substance of this "sand" you claim Creationism is built on?
In my opinion, it follows that the post-modern Catholic Church prematurely and unnecessarily conceded creatio ex essentia, just as the prescientific Church errantly adopted Aristotelian cosmology. (The Bible does not recommend a literal geocentric cosmology, by the way.) While the latter is understandable, the former is not, and neither of them are biblically justifiable.
There is no need to "modernize" the Bible. The ancients' pre-scientific conception of the universe is not relevant to biblical inerrancy, much less the prescientific expositions of empirical phenomena that might be attributed to the Bible by misguided believers and non-believers alike. God's word stands and stays; it's surety is not subject to the passing conceptual fads of imperfect and half-blind creatures.
While the Bible does make some scientific claims, it's not a scientific treatise and never has been, except in the minds of some. I've never thought of Creationism as being anything more than a general exposition of origins against the backdrop of original sin and the problem of evil. Beyond that, God has simply left the details of scientific inquiry to us. Learned, post-scientific hermeneutics has no problem with the idea that Creationism is not a scientific system of thought, but merely a general set of guidelines by which we may properly understand the essential meaning of the empirical data.
And there's no ideological tension between the Bible and the Big Bang theory, if that's what you're implying. On the contrary, it is more suggestive of creatio ex nihilo than steady-state theory, though as Lemaître himself rightly observed the appearance is not necessarily conclusive of anything in that regard.
. . . evolutionists are playing a game of conceptual hide-and-seek when they claim that the classical construct of irreducible complexity in and of itself has been debunked. Refuting Behe's ill-considered application of it to biochemistry—a half-baked version that fails to anticipate the obvious possibility of degraded systems or their isolated components performing less efficient or alternate functions—is of no consequence. (Incidentally, I wrote Behe about that possibility back in '96 after reading his book. Sure enough, well, you know the rest. . . .) Properly rendered, irreducible complexity does not dispute the plausibility of diminished systems, it illustrates the implausibility of complex systems arising by blind luck. That has not been debunked by anyone. Behe should have paid more attention to the essential quality of Paley’s formulation and the prerequisites of Kant's.
In other words, in the classical tradition, irreducible complexity obtains to the rise of organization from chaos, not to any potential degradation of function. The former entails an uphill battle in the midst of a chaotic collection of precursors vying against conservation. It has to do with the problem of anticipatorily formulating the overarching function of an interdependent system of discretely oriented parts, each contributing to the sum of a whole that could not have orchestrated its own composition from the ground up.
Further, and now comes the slight-of-hand that impresses no one but bleating sheep, evolutionists themselves do not refute Behe's straw man with the paper biochemistry of evolutionary theory. The theoretical mechanism of natural selection does not compose complex machines by systematically stripping them of their parts. Instead it must build them without a blueprint and do so in a sea of competing precursors, once again, vying against conservation. It's not the other way around. Miller can illustrate the alternate functions of degraded mousetraps all he wants; that does not demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolutionary theory are the cause of the comprehensive functions of complex integrated systems.
But the sheep go "bah, bah, bah."
Debunked?
What kind of scientific term is that anyway? The matter cannot be resolved syllogistically or analogously. It's a matter of experimentation and falsification.
Now you see it or maybe you still don't.
In other words, ultimately, it's not even a matter of morphology. It's a matter of accumulating information, not only against a tidal wave of difficulties that rebuff conservation, but against the whims of a genetic material whose sequences are not arranged by any chemically preordained bonding affinity, but by extraneous forces. And to my mind that means nothing of particular interest could arise in the first place without the intervention of an intelligent being. I trust that we at least agree on that point, given that you are a theistic evolutionist. Why would you recommend the prattle of atheist savants who must necessarily override the putative distinction between the vagaries of abiogenesis and the calculi of evolutionary theory?
. . . The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. There's nothing necessary about it. And given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being. The record would look the same.
. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. To characterize my interpretation of the evidence as an error begs the question and mistakes the arrows for something they're not, i.e., the artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.
. . . Pointing to a small handful of groupings of allegedly related lineages consisting of an equally small handful of intermediate forms, which is the best that evolutionists have ever been able to come up with out of millions of fossils, does not impress me. . . . The number of changes required and the degree of complexity involved, for example, in the enterprise of transforming a land animal into a sea animal, or vice versa, are immense. Just how many transitional forms are we talking about here? Such a splash didn't take place in one dive. It involved every system—skeletal, respiratory, digestive, reproductive, circulatory, integumentary, lymphatic . . . the transitional migration of a snout into a blowhole on the top of the head!
Are we talking about thousands of transitional forms? Tens of thousands? Multiply that by millions of species.
I'm well acquainted with the rhetoric that evolutionists invoke regarding the dearth of plausible intermediate forms in the fossil record, like how we would not expect "to find . . . half-bat/half-bird intermediate forms in the fossil record", as it was sardonically put by an evolutionist recently.
Oh? And why not?
The early Darwinists, including Darwin himself, certainly expected them and were perplexed by their absence. And what's Neo-Darwinism anyway, really, but a collection of attempts (including punctuated equilibrium) to explain why we don't see them.
It was and remains a serious problem for the theory, one which evolutionists themselves are actively trying to resolve. It's just that the theory's leading lights tend not to talk about it frankly or very often. The rest is just double-speak. In the meantime, they think to turn this problem into a smear against the skeptics who raise it, that is, against those who keep resurrecting the bone they want to keep buried. Moreover, in spite of the standard meaning of "change" in evolutionary theory, with which I am well acquainted from a purely theoretical perspective and do understand . . . a scheme of common ancestry necessarily does entail transmutation.
The problem here is, that you continue to make assertions as to the bias and dishonesty of those who understand evolution. Most scientists understand evolution, and realise that it is the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. It meshes neatly with other sciences, such as genetics, medicine, dentistry, paleontology, archeology, geology, chemistry, physics and any others you could name. —Labsci
Actually, anything can be brought into line with the theory. There's really nothing "meshy" about it. Any one of those fields could do without it, especially physics. Evolutionary theory makes few predictions, and in truth the sort of predictions it makes are historical in nature. They are made in hindsight, wherein something or another is observed and then (viola!) the evolutionist proclaims that's exactly what the theory would expect or predict. (The expectations of Creationism can do the same thing, and you might see that if you were to rid yourself of certain assumptions about the nature of the biblical record and the baggage that has been piled on top of it without due consideration.) Anything can be brought into line with a tautological mechanism of "what survives, survives." Both environmental change and mutation are random; the product of two random variables is a random variable. The arguments that have been made by some, including the likes of Dawkins, to the contrary are nonsense. And that's problematical for any attempt to account for the conservation of any ensemble of genetic characteristics that might affect transmutation.
Nothing visible is going to happen in so short a time as 200 years in the laboratory. If a fly changed into anything other than a fly, it would blow evolution out of the water, and falsify it completely. —Labsci
Actually, we're talking about millions of generations of accelerated speciation. The origin point of generational experimentation on fruit flies was to achieve an observable instance of transmutational speciation. In any event, the thrust of my point regarding fruit flies had to do with this statement: "[m]any microevolutionary steps equals macroevolution." At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. You imagine a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believe that this scenario provides the "best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth." I see a biological history consisting of a series of creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within. The evidence would look the same either way.
In accordance with your confirmation of my point about fruit flies, we can't observe speciation beyond the microevolutionary steps and, also, we don't see an abundance of obvious transitory forms in the fossil record, so what's Darwinism (the gratuitous insertion or extrapolation of a common ancestry) ultimately based on, if not a materialistic naturalism? There's nothing in the observable and quantifiable compositions and processes of biological systems that is at odds with the fundamentals of Creationism. Hence, as for the regnant scientific community's a prior bias, what is the substance of this "sand" you claim Creationism is built on?
In my opinion, it follows that the post-modern Catholic Church prematurely and unnecessarily conceded creatio ex essentia, just as the prescientific Church errantly adopted Aristotelian cosmology. (The Bible does not recommend a literal geocentric cosmology, by the way.) While the latter is understandable, the former is not, and neither of them are biblically justifiable.
There is no need to "modernize" the Bible. The ancients' pre-scientific conception of the universe is not relevant to biblical inerrancy, much less the prescientific expositions of empirical phenomena that might be attributed to the Bible by misguided believers and non-believers alike. God's word stands and stays; it's surety is not subject to the passing conceptual fads of imperfect and half-blind creatures.
While the Bible does make some scientific claims, it's not a scientific treatise and never has been, except in the minds of some. I've never thought of Creationism as being anything more than a general exposition of origins against the backdrop of original sin and the problem of evil. Beyond that, God has simply left the details of scientific inquiry to us. Learned, post-scientific hermeneutics has no problem with the idea that Creationism is not a scientific system of thought, but merely a general set of guidelines by which we may properly understand the essential meaning of the empirical data.
And there's no ideological tension between the Bible and the Big Bang theory, if that's what you're implying. On the contrary, it is more suggestive of creatio ex nihilo than steady-state theory, though as Lemaître himself rightly observed the appearance is not necessarily conclusive of anything in that regard.
. . . evolutionists are playing a game of conceptual hide-and-seek when they claim that the classical construct of irreducible complexity in and of itself has been debunked. Refuting Behe's ill-considered application of it to biochemistry—a half-baked version that fails to anticipate the obvious possibility of degraded systems or their isolated components performing less efficient or alternate functions—is of no consequence. (Incidentally, I wrote Behe about that possibility back in '96 after reading his book. Sure enough, well, you know the rest. . . .) Properly rendered, irreducible complexity does not dispute the plausibility of diminished systems, it illustrates the implausibility of complex systems arising by blind luck. That has not been debunked by anyone. Behe should have paid more attention to the essential quality of Paley’s formulation and the prerequisites of Kant's.
In other words, in the classical tradition, irreducible complexity obtains to the rise of organization from chaos, not to any potential degradation of function. The former entails an uphill battle in the midst of a chaotic collection of precursors vying against conservation. It has to do with the problem of anticipatorily formulating the overarching function of an interdependent system of discretely oriented parts, each contributing to the sum of a whole that could not have orchestrated its own composition from the ground up.
Further, and now comes the slight-of-hand that impresses no one but bleating sheep, evolutionists themselves do not refute Behe's straw man with the paper biochemistry of evolutionary theory. The theoretical mechanism of natural selection does not compose complex machines by systematically stripping them of their parts. Instead it must build them without a blueprint and do so in a sea of competing precursors, once again, vying against conservation. It's not the other way around. Miller can illustrate the alternate functions of degraded mousetraps all he wants; that does not demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolutionary theory are the cause of the comprehensive functions of complex integrated systems.
But the sheep go "bah, bah, bah."
Debunked?
What kind of scientific term is that anyway? The matter cannot be resolved syllogistically or analogously. It's a matter of experimentation and falsification.
Now you see it or maybe you still don't.
In other words, ultimately, it's not even a matter of morphology. It's a matter of accumulating information, not only against a tidal wave of difficulties that rebuff conservation, but against the whims of a genetic material whose sequences are not arranged by any chemically preordained bonding affinity, but by extraneous forces. And to my mind that means nothing of particular interest could arise in the first place without the intervention of an intelligent being. I trust that we at least agree on that point, given that you are a theistic evolutionist. Why would you recommend the prattle of atheist savants who must necessarily override the putative distinction between the vagaries of abiogenesis and the calculi of evolutionary theory?
7. Hollie: How many times have the skeptics' objections been falsified by the archeological and textual record in history? I don't know, but perhaps I should be asking that question instead.
8. Hollie: Have I ever made any sense about anything? I don't think so, but I'll keep trying.
9. Hollie: I don't know much about science at all, really, and even less about the history and methodology of biblical hermeneutics, but I don't mind being wrong most of the time because being wrong is what I do best.
10. Hollie: I have no idea how many of the hundreds of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in history thus far, but I'll keep asking this same question and disregard the astronomically staggering mathematical odds against the prospect of all these prophecies being fulfilled thus far to the letter if they were not revealed by on omniscient Deity.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh
The relativist's idea of discourse: Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of duh backed by nothing)
______________________
Hollie: the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
Rawlings:
Hollie: Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
QW: The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is not universally indispensable. The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic. The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary! Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
Foxfyre: God is not omniscient! God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves! I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove! You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
BreezeWood: You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
Rawlings: Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: He won't answer the question!
Rawlings: Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does not follow?
Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
Boss: Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they do defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They do defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
GT: Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is.Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The a priori axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
Rawlings: You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
GT: &*?%#+*&^(@!
Seallybobo: Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
Amrchaos: The objective, a priori axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
Michael Martin: God created everything, including knowledge!
Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
orogenicman: Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!
Emily: Can't we all just get along?
Tom Sweetnam: $%^&@#*+!
Justin: These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
Rawlings: You got that right.
All of the relativists in unison: Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!
Rawlings:
The relativist's idea of discourse: Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of duh backed by nothing)
______________________
Hollie: the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
Rawlings:
You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean tabula rasa has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an a priori operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.
We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an a priori operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.
Hollie: Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
QW: The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is not universally indispensable.
The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic. The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary! Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves. Foxfyre: God is not omniscient! God is little.
A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves! I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove! You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God. BreezeWood: You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
Rawlings: Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: He won't answer the question!
Rawlings: Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does not follow?
Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
Boss: Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage.
Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they do defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They do defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you! GT: Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is.
Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The a priori axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap. Rawlings: You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
GT: &*?%#+*&^(@!
Seallybobo: Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
Amrchaos: The objective, a priori axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.
All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics. Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
Michael Martin: God created everything, including knowledge!
Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
orogenicman: Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!
Emily: Can't we all just get along?
Tom Sweetnam: $%^&@#*+!
Justin: These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
Rawlings: You got that right.
All of the relativists in unison: Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!
Rawlings:
Last edited:
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Hollie's Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy
The author asks: "What is the evidence for conventional science?"
Whaaaaaa?
There's no such thing as evidence for conventional science . . . whatever that's supposed to be in the first place. Evidence for science? Science, in and of itself, is an empirical phenomenon? Since when? Indeed, conventional science according to the author means ontological naturalism, and there's not a lick of empirical evidence for that either.
Creationism proper is a theological construct, that includes some scientific claims, the detailed understanding of which is inferred from empirical data as processed by the methodology of science. Creationism is neither science nor opposed to science. It merely eschews the mythical dogma of the scientifically indemonstrable claims of the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.
Creationism proper is the Judeo-Christian construct of divine origin for the cosmological order and its constituents. It endorses the scientific presupposition of methodological naturalism, as opposed to the materialist's presupposition of metaphysical/ontological naturalism.
It asserts a divinely ordered history of cosmological development and biological speciation: a historical series of direct and indirect, creational events entailing the origin of existents and the processes thereof subject to the physical laws of nature previously established to govern the natural course (or subsequent events) of the variously complex and discrete properties and actualizations of material substances. Hence, this history includes subsequent creative events of biological speciation above the infrastructural-level of the chemical properties of prebiotic, organic materials.
The evidence that supports creationism is the apparent fact that the history of cosmological development and biological speciation is . . . a historical series of events entailing the emergence and coalescence of existents and the processes thereof in accordance with the physical laws of nature (the four fundamental interactions or forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force) previously established via the Big Bang of the singularity.
Again, science is science, a methodology of verification and falsification regarding the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. It is not the various theories of science as such or the metaphysical apriority of ontological naturalism, and that is clearly what the author means by conventional science!
The author writes: "Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences."
No! Some people unwittingly beg the question as they conflate science proper with their empirically indemonstrable presupposition that all of cosmological and biologically history is strictly and necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, assume without any rational or empirical justification whatsoever that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure, when no such thing has ever been known to have happened or observed to have happened at all . . . ever!
The author writes: "Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?"
The plain reading of nature does not support what the author calls conventional science, that is, does not support the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.
Some people just assume that because we're here, the supposed processes of prebiotic chemical evolution and biological evolution must necessarily be the direct cause of biological origin and speciation, in spite of the fact that, once again, the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents have never been known to produce or have ever been directly observed to produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure.
The chronological evidence would look exactly the same for both old-earth creationism and presumptuous naturalism. Hocus Pocus. The acolytes of the latter have simply talked themselves into a scenario of a common ancestry based on the unwitting assumption that the chronology of things evinces something that does not necessary follow at all.
Not only does the author go on about his conventional science, the unwitting imposition of his materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, but exposes his scriptural and theological ignorance in questions #11, #12, #13 and #14 under the heading of How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?
He writes:
Because the Earth and the universe are apparently much older than the young-earth creationism of the prescientific hermeneutics of Bishop Ussher's genealogical chronology would have it. The fact of the matter is that the Bible does not tell us how old the Earth or the universe is, and any claim to the contrary is scripturally speculative and gratuitous: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html.
The enterprise of uncovering the discrete facts of nature is scientific in nature, not theological, and the facts thereof do not undermine the biblical account of origin in any way, shape or form.
In question #14, He writes:
The awkwardness of the author's presentation is compounded by the fact that all terrestrial creatures share the same underlying genetic motif, not just some, a fact that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a common ancestry. In other words, why not a complex pattern, albeit, as premised on what would necessarily be the same underlying genetic motif of species that are of the same planet, subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions thereof?
Crickets chirping
What is the nature of the author's rhetorical assumption? Why, it's the teleological assumption of the metaphysics of materialism that contradictorily presupposes to know something about how God would necessarily go about things . . . even though the same underlying genetic motif of species that are of the same planet and subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions, coupled with a complex diversity in morphology, make perfect sense in a special-creation scenario.
The following requires special treatment. The author writes:
Actually, the Earth is estimated to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Life on Earth is thought to have first appeared approximately 3.5 to 3.7 billion years ago. Uh . . . and I'm just ball-parking it here, throwing this at the wall to see if it sticks: because God gave us the intelligence to figure these things out.
The author asks: "What is the evidence for conventional science?"
Whaaaaaa?
There's no such thing as evidence for conventional science . . . whatever that's supposed to be in the first place. Evidence for science? Science, in and of itself, is an empirical phenomenon? Since when? Indeed, conventional science according to the author means ontological naturalism, and there's not a lick of empirical evidence for that either.
Creationism proper is a theological construct, that includes some scientific claims, the detailed understanding of which is inferred from empirical data as processed by the methodology of science. Creationism is neither science nor opposed to science. It merely eschews the mythical dogma of the scientifically indemonstrable claims of the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.
Creationism proper is the Judeo-Christian construct of divine origin for the cosmological order and its constituents. It endorses the scientific presupposition of methodological naturalism, as opposed to the materialist's presupposition of metaphysical/ontological naturalism.
It asserts a divinely ordered history of cosmological development and biological speciation: a historical series of direct and indirect, creational events entailing the origin of existents and the processes thereof subject to the physical laws of nature previously established to govern the natural course (or subsequent events) of the variously complex and discrete properties and actualizations of material substances. Hence, this history includes subsequent creative events of biological speciation above the infrastructural-level of the chemical properties of prebiotic, organic materials.
The evidence that supports creationism is the apparent fact that the history of cosmological development and biological speciation is . . . a historical series of events entailing the emergence and coalescence of existents and the processes thereof in accordance with the physical laws of nature (the four fundamental interactions or forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force) previously established via the Big Bang of the singularity.
Again, science is science, a methodology of verification and falsification regarding the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. It is not the various theories of science as such or the metaphysical apriority of ontological naturalism, and that is clearly what the author means by conventional science!
The author writes: "Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences."
No! Some people unwittingly beg the question as they conflate science proper with their empirically indemonstrable presupposition that all of cosmological and biologically history is strictly and necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, assume without any rational or empirical justification whatsoever that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure, when no such thing has ever been known to have happened or observed to have happened at all . . . ever!
The author writes: "Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?"
The plain reading of nature does not support what the author calls conventional science, that is, does not support the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.
Some people just assume that because we're here, the supposed processes of prebiotic chemical evolution and biological evolution must necessarily be the direct cause of biological origin and speciation, in spite of the fact that, once again, the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents have never been known to produce or have ever been directly observed to produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure.
The chronological evidence would look exactly the same for both old-earth creationism and presumptuous naturalism. Hocus Pocus. The acolytes of the latter have simply talked themselves into a scenario of a common ancestry based on the unwitting assumption that the chronology of things evinces something that does not necessary follow at all.
Not only does the author go on about his conventional science, the unwitting imposition of his materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, but exposes his scriptural and theological ignorance in questions #11, #12, #13 and #14 under the heading of How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?
He writes:
Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time—for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas—from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?
Because the Earth and the universe are apparently much older than the young-earth creationism of the prescientific hermeneutics of Bishop Ussher's genealogical chronology would have it. The fact of the matter is that the Bible does not tell us how old the Earth or the universe is, and any claim to the contrary is scripturally speculative and gratuitous: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html.
The enterprise of uncovering the discrete facts of nature is scientific in nature, not theological, and the facts thereof do not undermine the biblical account of origin in any way, shape or form.
In question #14, He writes:
If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?
The awkwardness of the author's presentation is compounded by the fact that all terrestrial creatures share the same underlying genetic motif, not just some, a fact that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a common ancestry. In other words, why not a complex pattern, albeit, as premised on what would necessarily be the same underlying genetic motif of species that are of the same planet, subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions thereof?
Crickets chirping
What is the nature of the author's rhetorical assumption? Why, it's the teleological assumption of the metaphysics of materialism that contradictorily presupposes to know something about how God would necessarily go about things . . . even though the same underlying genetic motif of species that are of the same planet and subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions, coupled with a complex diversity in morphology, make perfect sense in a special-creation scenario.
The following requires special treatment. The author writes:
(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?
Actually, the Earth is estimated to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Life on Earth is thought to have first appeared approximately 3.5 to 3.7 billion years ago. Uh . . . and I'm just ball-parking it here, throwing this at the wall to see if it sticks: because God gave us the intelligence to figure these things out.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
The Atheist Demonstrates Once Again that He's Got Nothin', and Nothin' from Nothin' = Nothin'!
1. Do we exist? Yes we do!
2. Does the cosmological order exist? Yes it does, Mr. Geologist (snicker), amateur astronomer!
3. Is the God axiom a scientific fact of human cognition/psychology? Yes it is!
4. Logically, wouldn't the substance of the God axiom, the ultimate origin of all other things that exist apart from itself, necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness? Yes, of course! How could any creature be greater than the Creator?
5. Is the existence of God subject to scientific verification or falsification at this time? No, of course not!
6. Is it logically possible for one to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist, on the very face of it, without inherently contradicting oneself, negating this assertion and, thus, positively proving that the opposite must be true according to the bioneurologically hardwired laws of organic logic? No, it's not!
7. Hence, all of the above are necessarily true statements logically!
That's what a sound/valid logical proof is!
According to the scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, God must be!
1. Do you have an argument that can overthrow the veracity of the three bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle)? Of course, not, as any counterargument necessarily presupposes them to be true!
2. Do you have a sound/valid syllogistic argument that could possibly overthrow the logical conclusion of the organic laws of human thought? No, you don't!
3. Does there exist any rational argument or empirically demonstrable evidence that would overthrow the scientific fact of the God axiom in human cognition/psychology, the veracity of the God axiom or the apparent substance thereof according to the laws of organic thought; i.e., does there exist any peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that would overthrow/falsify any one of these things? No, there doesn't!
4. Does there exist any rational argument or empirically demonstrable evidence that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? No, there doesn't!
5. Can you explain how something arose from nothing? No, you can't!
You got nothin', and nothin' from nothin' = nothing.
The Seven Thingsâ„¢ 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/10248535/.
1. Do we exist? Yes we do!
2. Does the cosmological order exist? Yes it does, Mr. Geologist (snicker), amateur astronomer!
3. Is the God axiom a scientific fact of human cognition/psychology? Yes it is!
4. Logically, wouldn't the substance of the God axiom, the ultimate origin of all other things that exist apart from itself, necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness? Yes, of course! How could any creature be greater than the Creator?
5. Is the existence of God subject to scientific verification or falsification at this time? No, of course not!
6. Is it logically possible for one to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist, on the very face of it, without inherently contradicting oneself, negating this assertion and, thus, positively proving that the opposite must be true according to the bioneurologically hardwired laws of organic logic? No, it's not!
7. Hence, all of the above are necessarily true statements logically!
That's what a sound/valid logical proof is!
According to the scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, God must be!
1. Do you have an argument that can overthrow the veracity of the three bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle)? Of course, not, as any counterargument necessarily presupposes them to be true!
2. Do you have a sound/valid syllogistic argument that could possibly overthrow the logical conclusion of the organic laws of human thought? No, you don't!
3. Does there exist any rational argument or empirically demonstrable evidence that would overthrow the scientific fact of the God axiom in human cognition/psychology, the veracity of the God axiom or the apparent substance thereof according to the laws of organic thought; i.e., does there exist any peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that would overthrow/falsify any one of these things? No, there doesn't!
4. Does there exist any rational argument or empirically demonstrable evidence that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? No, there doesn't!
5. Can you explain how something arose from nothing? No, you can't!
You got nothin', and nothin' from nothin' = nothing.
The Seven Thingsâ„¢ 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/10248535/.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
The Seven Thingsâ„¢
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!
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 Thingsâ„¢.
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/10248541/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/
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 Thingsâ„¢.
Last edited:
The On-Going Whining And Stuttering and Mumbling of the Zealots Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh
______________________
Hollie: the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
Rawlings: aww Whaaa
______________________
Hollie: the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
Rawlings: aww Whaaa
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
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/10248552/
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.
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/10248552/
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.
Last edited:
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence
See Post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.
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.
See Post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.
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.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knotsâ„¢
1. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.
2. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
3. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
4. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity.
5. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.
6. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.
7. Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.
Conclusion: persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knotsâ„¢ are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
That's weird.
1. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.
2. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
3. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
4. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity.
5. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.
6. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.
7. Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.
Conclusion: persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knotsâ„¢ are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
That's weird.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
How MAGA Got Brainwashed; The Science Behind The Right Wings 50 Year Propaganda Campaign- Started by skews13
- Replies: 2
-
Feds say they thwarted ISIS terror attack at Michigan military base- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 10
-
Latest Discussions
-
Trump is actually saving the country money stop whining about the jet.
- Latest: Frankenstein
-
