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

[Hollie]

I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.

I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.

What arguments have I made for either magic or super naturalism?

Your pointless argument that atheism is a religion with the attendant association to beliefs in magic and supernatural gods.

Do you typically forget what you have posted even hours earlier?

 

[Justin Davis]

To correct your false claims and errors, I have no issue with applying the religious zealot label to the science-loathing, self-haters who press a religious agenda as a means to displace reason and rationality.

Have you noticed just how quickly the pompous zealots are forced to retreat to personal attacks when their failed arguments are shot down in flames?

But yeah, why don't you tell us how much more you know about the gods than others do.

I think you missed my point, you are the religious zealot. Every single post you make revolves around the belief that you are 100% correct, and you are willing to ignore evince that proves you wrong simply to maintain your belief system. You defend that system against all challenges, and attribute a belief system to anyone that dares to challenge you that ignores anything they say. If you search this thread you will not find a single example of me defending my beliefs over yours, I have not even made an effort to explain to anyone what I believe. In fact, I have categorical refused to do so because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is about the structure of logic and how it can be used to prove anything, and why simply declaring that an argument is invalid simply because you don't like the conclusion is not proof of your ability to reason.

Want to try again?

I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.

I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.

This is why I asked you if you were talking about Foxfyre's argument. M.D.R.'s arguments aren't supernatural.

 

[Hollie]

To correct your false claims and errors, I have no issue with applying the religious zealot label to the science-loathing, self-haters who press a religious agenda as a means to displace reason and rationality.

Have you noticed just how quickly the pompous zealots are forced to retreat to personal attacks when their failed arguments are shot down in flames?

But yeah, why don't you tell us how much more you know about the gods than others do.

I think you missed my point, you are the religious zealot. Every single post you make revolves around the belief that you are 100% correct, and you are willing to ignore evince that proves you wrong simply to maintain your belief system. You defend that system against all challenges, and attribute a belief system to anyone that dares to challenge you that ignores anything they say. If you search this thread you will not find a single example of me defending my beliefs over yours, I have not even made an effort to explain to anyone what I believe. In fact, I have categorical refused to do so because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is about the structure of logic and how it can be used to prove anything, and why simply declaring that an argument is invalid simply because you don't like the conclusion is not proof of your ability to reason.

Want to try again?

I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.

I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.

This is why I asked you if you were talking about Foxfyre's argument. M.D.R.'s arguments aren't supernatural.

How did you miss the teleological argument being one used by the religious entities?

 

[Justin Davis]

To correct your false claims and errors, I have no issue with applying the religious zealot label to the science-loathing, self-haters who press a religious agenda as a means to displace reason and rationality.

Have you noticed just how quickly the pompous zealots are forced to retreat to personal attacks when their failed arguments are shot down in flames?

But yeah, why don't you tell us how much more you know about the gods than others do.

I think you missed my point, you are the religious zealot. Every single post you make revolves around the belief that you are 100% correct, and you are willing to ignore evince that proves you wrong simply to maintain your belief system. You defend that system against all challenges, and attribute a belief system to anyone that dares to challenge you that ignores anything they say. If you search this thread you will not find a single example of me defending my beliefs over yours, I have not even made an effort to explain to anyone what I believe. In fact, I have categorical refused to do so because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is about the structure of logic and how it can be used to prove anything, and why simply declaring that an argument is invalid simply because you don't like the conclusion is not proof of your ability to reason.

Want to try again?

I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.

I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.

This is why I asked you if you were talking about Foxfyre's argument. M.D.R.'s arguments aren't supernatural.

How did you miss the teleological argument being one used by the religious entities?

How did you miss M.D.R.'s demolition of the atheist's religious argument that God can't exist because God wouldn't design the universe the way its designed? That's the same kind of religious argument you made. So much for the lie that you guys don't have a definitive idea about God lurking in your minds.



Oh, that's right. You didn't read it.

 

[Hollie]

To correct your false claims and errors, I have no issue with applying the religious zealot label to the science-loathing, self-haters who press a religious agenda as a means to displace reason and rationality.

Have you noticed just how quickly the pompous zealots are forced to retreat to personal attacks when their failed arguments are shot down in flames?

But yeah, why don't you tell us how much more you know about the gods than others do.

I think you missed my point, you are the religious zealot. Every single post you make revolves around the belief that you are 100% correct, and you are willing to ignore evince that proves you wrong simply to maintain your belief system. You defend that system against all challenges, and attribute a belief system to anyone that dares to challenge you that ignores anything they say. If you search this thread you will not find a single example of me defending my beliefs over yours, I have not even made an effort to explain to anyone what I believe. In fact, I have categorical refused to do so because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is about the structure of logic and how it can be used to prove anything, and why simply declaring that an argument is invalid simply because you don't like the conclusion is not proof of your ability to reason.

Want to try again?

I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.

I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.

This is why I asked you if you were talking about Foxfyre's argument. M.D.R.'s arguments aren't supernatural.

How did you miss the teleological argument being one used by the religious entities?

How did you miss M.D.R.'s demolition of the atheist's religious argument that God can't exist because God wouldn't design the universe the way its designed? That's the same kind of religious argument you made. So much for the lie that you guys don't have a definitive idea about God lurking in your minds.



Oh, that's right. You didn't read it.

I suspect you're having difficulty with comprehending some pretty basic concepts. First, there is no reason to accept your gods or the gods of others as designing any universe. Secondly, why would anyone accept you or anyone else is in a position of authority to decide how the gods should, or should not have designed any universe?

Has it occurred to you that a universe poorly designed suggests that your gods are inept, incompetent designers?

Lastly, there is no "atheists' argument" about any gods designing anything. Those arguments come from you fundie zealots.

 

[Justin Davis]

I think you missed my point, you are the religious zealot. Every single post you make revolves around the belief that you are 100% correct, and you are willing to ignore evince that proves you wrong simply to maintain your belief system. You defend that system against all challenges, and attribute a belief system to anyone that dares to challenge you that ignores anything they say. If you search this thread you will not find a single example of me defending my beliefs over yours, I have not even made an effort to explain to anyone what I believe. In fact, I have categorical refused to do so because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is about the structure of logic and how it can be used to prove anything, and why simply declaring that an argument is invalid simply because you don't like the conclusion is not proof of your ability to reason.

Want to try again?

I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.

I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.

This is why I asked you if you were talking about Foxfyre's argument. M.D.R.'s arguments aren't supernatural.

How did you miss the teleological argument being one used by the religious entities?

How did you miss M.D.R.'s demolition of the atheist's religious argument that God can't exist because God wouldn't design the universe the way its designed? That's the same kind of religious argument you made. So much for the lie that you guys don't have a definitive idea about God lurking in your minds.



Oh, that's right. You didn't read it.

I suspect you're having difficulty with comprehending some pretty basic concepts. First, there is no reason to accept your gods or the gods of others as designing any universe. Secondly, why would anyone accept you or anyone else is in a position of authority to decide how the gods should, or should not have designed any universe?

Has it occurred to you that a universe poorly designed suggests that your gods are inept, incompetent designers?

Lastly, there is no "atheists' argument" about any gods designing anything. Those arguments come from you fundie zealots.

You're an idiot.

 

[sealybobo]

Did you see that theist yesterday chopped that woman's head off because she wouldn't convert?

What does an atheist do if he or she disagrees with you? We certainly don't get violent about it.

So theists can talk all day about Pol Pot, Lenin & Hitler. What we see today is that the concept of god in your head doesn't necessarily make you a good person. I have the position that religion is bad for us or at least I don't think it is automatically a good thing.

I see some very good religious people and they believe in god, and if every theist were like these people, I wouldn't have a beef with religion or "religious people". Of course I don't include those people when I diss religion. I don't agree with them but that doesn't matter with them ior me.

Notice theists say they feel sorry for us and we feel the same way about them. They are naive, gullible, innocent, stupid, not so brite. It would be cute if it weren't so sad. LOL.

Never?

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

I'm going to make a sign that says US soldiers are cock suckers and are going to burn in hell for serving in Iraq and I'm going to march where a lot of Marines hang out. Will they lay their hands on me? That's what these asshole theists are doing to gay people. They're saying stuff that is very offensive to gays. They get away with it because our society is anti gay. Free speech?

I'm going to go to Detroit and have a sign that says black people are uncivilized. Or I'm going to send a black into KKK territory and have him carry a sign that says white women are easy sluts.

Chances are those marines or racists will act the same way that gay guy did.

 

[Hollie]

I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.

I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.

This is why I asked you if you were talking about Foxfyre's argument. M.D.R.'s arguments aren't supernatural.

How did you miss the teleological argument being one used by the religious entities?

How did you miss M.D.R.'s demolition of the atheist's religious argument that God can't exist because God wouldn't design the universe the way its designed? That's the same kind of religious argument you made. So much for the lie that you guys don't have a definitive idea about God lurking in your minds.



Oh, that's right. You didn't read it.

I suspect you're having difficulty with comprehending some pretty basic concepts. First, there is no reason to accept your gods or the gods of others as designing any universe. Secondly, why would anyone accept you or anyone else is in a position of authority to decide how the gods should, or should not have designed any universe?

Has it occurred to you that a universe poorly designed suggests that your gods are inept, incompetent designers?

Lastly, there is no "atheists' argument" about any gods designing anything. Those arguments come from you fundie zealots.

You're an idiot.

Pointlessness seems to be an attribute that defines the comments of you hateful fundies.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Did you really think facts can't exist without an omniscient mind?


Really?



Really?

As I said before my personal beliefs aren't relevant to the objectively verifiable realities of human cognition. I know of no logical proof which demonstrates that it's possible for knowledge of any kind to exist without God. The only thing you're argument in the above objectively proves is that it's possible for facts to exist without being known by a finite mind. Do you know of a logical proof which demonstrates that it's possible for knowledge to exist without God?

Yes or no?

If yes, what is it?

 

[Hollie]

Did you really think facts can't exist without an omniscient mind?


Really?



Really?

As I said before my personal beliefs aren't relevant to the objectively verifiable realities of human cognition. I know of no logical proof which demonstrates that it's possible for knowledge of any kind to exist without God. The only thing you're argument in the above objectively proves is that it's possible for facts to exist without being known by a finite mind. Do you know of a logical proof which demonstrates that it's possible for knowledge to exist without God?

Yes or no?

If yes, what is it?

Are you really so dense as to not understand that your pointless question-begging presupposes one or more gods?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

First of all, I SHOWED YOU knowledge independent of God. One always NECESSARILY knows whether or not they KNOW everything. That is ALWAYS TRUE. Independent of the Universe itself that is always true.

You just don't see the problem with your thinking. You're seriously confused.

Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.​

And:

Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.​

Once again, the only things you have objectively shown is that knowledge can be known by finite minds, and facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them.

1. You have conceded that you are a finite mind.

2. Hence, you concede that you don't have all knowledge.

3. To know whether or not it is possible for knowledge to exist without God (a notion that in and of itself is absurd, as God, by definition, is all-knowledge: knowledge is possible if all-knowledge doesn't exist?!), you would have to be God.

4. In spite of the fact that you pretend to be God when you claim that knowledge cannot exist without you (self-negation), you know that you are not God.

5. You necessarily assume God's existence in your argument, albeit, by absurdly usurping the place of God without justification.

6. You have not proven that knowledge can exist without God.​

(By the way, don't deceive yourself into believing that because you defeated Foxfyre's cosmological argument that you have defeated the cosmological argument.)

 

[sealybobo]

Did you really think facts can't exist without an omniscient mind?


Really?



Really?

As I said before my personal beliefs aren't relevant to the objectively verifiable realities of human cognition. I know of no logical proof which demonstrates that it's possible for knowledge of any kind to exist without God. The only thing you're argument in the above objectively proves is that it's possible for facts to exist without being known by a finite mind. Do you know of a logical proof which demonstrates that it's possible for knowledge to exist without God?

Yes or no?

If yes, what is it?

Has this god or deity of yours ever talked to you or anyone on earth?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Are you really so dense as to not understand that your pointless question-begging presupposes one or more gods?

Oh, I'm sorry, Adorable, you must have missed this:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

This syllogism is logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true if the major premise is true.

Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect if, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.

In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.

Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism. —M.D. Rawlings

"Demonstrably false", eh? Are you and PrachettFan related? He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.

Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.​

Now read post #691.

 

[G.T.]

MD your #3 is a naked assertion.

The way god is defined does not equate to a logical proof that said defined god exists, and so your #3 is baseless.

"We define god as all knowledge therefore god exists or else knowledge doesnt!"

Well, no. It doesn't work like that. And its QUITE fuggin ridiculous.


Read your #3 over and over and over. Your homework assignment is to tell me why its retarded.

Edit to add...this is regarding your #3 in post 691.

 

[G.T.]

Presupposition apologetics are basket cases.that is a fact, independent of god.

You're post 691 is full of naked assertions. Not arguments.

 

[G.T.]

"God is all knowledge therefore knowledge doesnt exist without god"

Is a stupid stupid stupid stupid

X30 more stupids.....argument.

 

[Hollie]

Are you really so dense as to not understand that your pointless question-begging presupposes one or more gods?

Oh, I'm sorry, Adorable, you must have missed this:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

This syllogism is logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true if the major premise is true.

Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect if, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.

In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.

Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism. —M.D. Rawlings

"Demonstrably false", eh? Are you and PrachettFan related? He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.

Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.​

Now read post #691.

You cut and pasted the nonsense in bolded text before. It was nonsense then as it is now.

You're an even bigger buffoon now, than you were before.

 

[G.T.]

Are you really so dense as to not understand that your pointless question-begging presupposes one or more gods?

Oh, I'm sorry, Adorable, you must have missed this:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

This syllogism is logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true if the major premise is true.

Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect if, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.

In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.

Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism. —M.D. Rawlings

"Demonstrably false", eh? Are you and PrachettFan related? He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.

Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.​

Now read post #691.

You cut and pasted the nonsense in bolded text before. It was nonsense then as it is now.

You're an even bigger buffoon now, than you were before.

There was like a three second time frame where I thought this dude was smarter than this horseshit he believes is rational, but uh......no.

He's a tap dancer.

 

[G.T.]

I think if anyone holds William lane Craig as any type of deep or rational thinker - time to re examine predispositions and biases. I'd say that as a friend, but I don't really care as an internet poster to be honest.

Craig has been s0nned so many times in debate its ridiculous. Hed be embarrassed if he weren't making money hand over fist about it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MD your #3 is a naked assertion.

The way god is defined does not equate to a logical proof that said defined god exists, and so your #3 is baseless.

"We define god as all knowledge therefore god exists or else knowledge doesnt!"

Well, no. It doesn't work like that. And its QUITE fuggin ridiculous.


Read your #3 over and over and over. Your homework assignment is to tell me why its retarded.

Edit to add...this is regarding your #3 in post 691.

Nonsense.

First. You're obviously refuted right off the bat:

Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.​

And:

Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.​

I already provided the logical proof for #3. It just hasn't sunk in for you, for as usual you haven't thought it through.

1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Now this presuppositional objection, meant to critique the supposedly unsupported major premise of the transcendental, meant to show that the transcendental begs the question, is obviously defective, and both the major premise and the conclusion can readily be shown by simple logic to be untenable. The argument is inherently contradictory, self-negating. The same thing cannot be said about or done to the real argument.
__________________________________

The assertion that God exists, unlike the assertion that God does not exist, is not inherently contradictory. The possibility of God's existence cannot be logically denied. You've already conceded that the assertion of atheism is not logically tenable. In any event, God by definition is all-knowledge or else the thing being defined is not God. You necessarily conceded that it is objectively apparent that #3 is a logically valid assertion, that the universally understood construct of God (or supreme being) is perfect knowledge, and you're very own argument proves that! You just didn't realize what you had actually argued, what you had actually proved logically, until I showed you.

Oh, by the way, your rational-agnostic assertion is invalid. You unwittingly asserted it, and rightly so, against atheism on the grounds of logic, but one cannot validly assert it against theism on the grounds of logic. Once again, logic dictates that God's existence cannot be denied without proof. The very act of asserting agnosticism concedes that fact of logic. I don't know if God exists means I don't know if God exists. It doesn't mean that the understanding of the possibly of God's existence is irrational. The universe is the evidence for God's existence, and your "nothingness objection" is not justifiable knowledge about anything.

You have been refuted on each one of these points individually and now in summary. It's not my problem that you are either not bright enough to understand the reality of it or not honest enough to admit it.

You're dismissed.