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

[PratchettFan]

I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.

The most intelligent response on the thread. The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time. Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.

For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God. It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.

Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based. It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.

I agree. In the absence of evidence you might as well go with what feels right to you. That is a perfectly reasonable approach.

Sometimes it is indeed that gut feeling that you have hit on a point of truth. But just as often it is accepted as logical or reasonable simply because there is no reason to question the motive of the one providing the information as being anything other than honest and honorable. But one cannot be a student of history or the Bible or scientific theory and read all the differing opinions and/or accounts and/or speculations and realistically believe that all are correct.

How does one believe in the big bang theory? None of us were there. Probably none of us have ever done the scientific research or observations or calculations that have made that the most popular theory for how the universe came to be the way it is. So most of us, having nothing else to base an opinion on, go with the most popular theory as presented in text books or scientific journals or via lectures or whatever. Reason and logic tells us that all those people are probably basing their conclusions on sound scientific principle and therefore we CHOOSE to accept those conclusions.

But we do so strictly on faith.

I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me. I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers. I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith. There is nothing wrong with belief. Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself. If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I spent four intense years, among other things, studying all those arguments my friend. I read with interest the scholarly agreement with them and the disagreement with them. All that commentary I judged to be presented via honorable and learned people who possessed no ulterior motives in presenting it. The student is left to choose the argument that makes the most sense to the student.

So can syllogism be used to make an argument for the existence of God? Yes and no.

I did my damndest for most of two decades to explain away everything I had ever heard or been taught about religion. I studied all the great religions and found that every single one of them contains kernels of truth and every one of them comes up lacking when it comes to answering the great cosmic questions that we probably aren't intended to know.

I stripped away every component of Christian beliefs/teaching that did not absolutely have to be there and arrived at the bare bones of what, for me, is truth:

1. God is
2. God loves me
3. We are not intended to fully understand it at least for now.
And that is based on empirical evidence.

I understand you. Nevertheless, the classical arguments for God’s existence are not about religion or faith as such. They're about the "science" of logic and the universal first principles of ontology that God imparted to mankind, the Imago Dei, by which we may all know that God is and that mankind is morally accountable to Him. These arguments have been variously asserted by the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, David, Christ and the Apostle Paul in scripture, and they go to the concerns of evangelistic apologetics. While they have been asserted by others, including the pagan, natural philosopher Aristotle, they are not extra-biblical.

You're getting into the area of really heavy duty theology here, though, and such is foolishness to the non believer who doesn't believe those figures you listed even existed, much less that they had any particular insight into the ways of God. To use their arguments as authoritative is as futile as saying the Bible is true. How do you know? Because it says so.

However, Einstein and Spinoza before him latched onto the basic principle you are bringing up here: that the logical mind that observes the universe and all the wonders in it with an open mind almost has to have a sense of some sort of intelligence behind it all. At least such a concept is logical and reasonable to embrace as a possibility. Only the most close minded deny such a possibility.

 

[Foxfyre]

I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me. I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers. I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith. There is nothing wrong with belief. Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself. If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.

I don't know. I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory. There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody. And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it. For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement. I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science. But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.

 

[PratchettFan]

I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me. I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers. I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith. There is nothing wrong with belief. Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself. If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.

I don't know. I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory. There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody. And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it. For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement. I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science. But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

 

[Foxfyre]

I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me. I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers. I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith. There is nothing wrong with belief. Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself. If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.

I don't know. I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory. There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody. And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it. For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement. I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science. But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

Oh I do apologize. I thought you were interested in having a civil discussion rather than making a flat statement that you expected everybody to accept as gospel. (Non-Christian gospel of course.) My mistake. I won't misunderstand again. Do have a pleasant evening.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Why should we discard the testimony of billions who pray and think they have encountered God?

What is it that mothers are fond of saying "If all of your friends jumped off of a cliff, would you?"

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should we discard the testimony of billions who pray and think they have encountered God?

What is it that mothers are fond of saying "If all of your friends jumped off of a cliff, would you?"

True. Just because something is popular doesn't make it right. The only ones with hard evidence are those who have experienced it. It is affirmed when others testify to the same kind of experience. Should those who have not experienced just accept it? Nope. Nor should they discount it for no other reason than they do not wish to believe that cloud of witnesses.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I spent four intense years, among other things, studying all those arguments my friend. I read with interest the scholarly agreement with them and the disagreement with them. All that commentary I judged to be presented via honorable and learned people who possessed no ulterior motives in presenting it. The student is left to choose the argument that makes the most sense to the student.

So can syllogism be used to make an argument for the existence of God? Yes and no.

I did my damndest for most of two decades to explain away everything I had ever heard or been taught about religion. I studied all the great religions and found that every single one of them contains kernels of truth and every one of them comes up lacking when it comes to answering the great cosmic questions that we probably aren't intended to know.

I stripped away every component of Christian beliefs/teaching that did not absolutely have to be there and arrived at the bare bones of what, for me, is truth:

1. God is
2. God loves me
3. We are not intended to fully understand it at least for now.
And that is based on empirical evidence.

I understand you. Nevertheless, the classical arguments for God’s existence are not about religion or faith as such. They're about the "science" of logic and the universal first principles of ontology that God imparted to mankind, the Imago Dei, by which we may all know that God is and that mankind is morally accountable to Him. These arguments have been variously asserted by the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, David, Christ and the Apostle Paul in scripture, and they go to the concerns of evangelistic apologetics. While they have been asserted by others, including the pagan, natural philosopher Aristotle, they are not extra-biblical.

You're getting into the area of really heavy duty theology here, though, and such is foolishness to the non believer who doesn't believe those figures you listed even existed, much less that they had any particular insight into the ways of God. To use their arguments as authoritative is as futile as saying the Bible is true. How do you know? Because it says so.

However, Einstein and Spinoza before him latched onto the basic principle you are bringing up here: that the logical mind that observes the universe and all the wonders in it with an open mind almost has to have a sense of some sort of intelligence behind it all. At least such a concept is logical and reasonable to embrace. Only the most close minded deny such a possibility.

But again, with all due respect, that's not right, Foxfyre, that is to say, the first paragraph of your post is not right, either factually or biblically. There's really nothing heavy duty about the readily self-evident imperatives regarding the problem of origin. The rational faculty of the Imago Dei was not corrupted by the Fall. That is the one thing that was left intact, "so that they are without excuse." Even the relativist, for example, cannot explain how two mutually exclusive or diametrically opposed ideas could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. Even if reality, in spite of all apparent indications, beyond the confines of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness (which entail the inherent laws of logic: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) were irrational: we wouldn't know the difference, as our minds and our perception of things are bound by these absolutes. (In post #57, Quantum Wingbag gets at something profoundly true: the apparent world beyond our minds is filtered through our senses. The best we can do is operate on the logical proofs of justification and the apparent results of systematic falsification, but such, objectively speaking, cannot be said to be the stuff of absolute certainty.)

But I need not bring the Bible into the fray with regard to the problem of origin. I only mentioned the various biblical figures to let you know that everyone of the classical arguments for God's existence have been made in scripture. They are not to be spurned by the Christian, as they go to the concerns of evangelistic apologetics. I need not appeal to any authority at all! Once again, the imperatives regarding the problem of origin are readily and universally apparent to all. The initial problem of origin is not theological, but philosophical.

Errors in logic are not necessarily the same thing as closed-mindedness, but closed-mindedness will certainly get in the way of recognizing errors in logic.

For example, what is this resistance to the uncomplicated notion that the existence of the universe coupled with the imperatives of human consciousness are the evidence for God's existence? What? A mind-bogglingly vast and complex universe, albeit, beautifully arrayed and systematically well-ordered, or so it seems, is not evidence for a Sentient origin?! LOL! What folks are doing here is merely confounding the distinction between absolute certainty and the logical proofs of justification derived when reason is brought to bear on the evidence, and that is precisely what the classical arguments for God's existence do. "The shallow think" of the new atheism and the normative relativism of the post-modern world has merely obscured the implications of these arguments via logical fallacy and misapprehensions.

I have no power to convince anyone that God exists, but there is nothing mysteriously heavy duty about the fact that the ultimate origin of the universe is an eternally self-subsistent something that is either Sentient or inanimate. There is nothing mysteriously heavy duty about the fact that the atheist necessarily concedes the ontologically independent existence of the idea of God in his very denial that their be any substance behind it. There is nothing mysteriously heavy duty about the following observation universally apparent to all:

For the idea of God—which contains within itself its own specific nature and attributes—imposes itself on the human mind without the human mind willing that it do so. In other words, the idea objectively exists in and of itself, and the atheist necessarily acknowledges this every time he denies there be any substance behind it.

. . . This impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a Being Who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent Being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent.

That does not mean, however, that this objectively apparent impression constitutes an absolute proof for either alternative. It demonstrates that it's at the base of knowledge, that it's derived from reason, not faith.

I have no interest in proving God's existence to anyone, just in demonstrating the absurdities that arise from the denial of the possibility, which, incidentally, do not plague the bald assertion that God must be whatsoever. The reason for this is self-evident: the idea of God pertains to the origin of the universe, not to its nonexistence, while the unqualified denial of God's existence detours around an inescapable imperative: the undeniable possibility. The former stems from larger considerations that do not interrupt the natural course of logic; the latter is akin to the blind devotion of religious fanaticism. —M.D. Rawlings​

The notion that the existence of the universe does not constitute evidence for God's existence is silly. The notion that the assertion of God's existence is not based on reason is silly. The notion that the inherently contradictory assertion of atheism carries as much or more power than the argument for God's existence is silly.

For those still struggling to clear the cobwebs from your minds, ask yourselves this question: What exactly is the evidence for atheism? The existence of the universe is evidence that God doesn't exist. How does that work? Why is that rationally problematical, oddly startling in an almost visceral sense?

 

[Thunderbird]

What is it that mothers are fond of saying "If all of your friends jumped off of a cliff, would you?"

I understand your point, but I'm talking about testimony rather than opinion.

Courts of law don't just dismiss testimony do they?

Interesting webpage: Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God by Peter Kreeft Ronald K. Tacelli

 

[Foxfyre]

I spent four intense years, among other things, studying all those arguments my friend. I read with interest the scholarly agreement with them and the disagreement with them. All that commentary I judged to be presented via honorable and learned people who possessed no ulterior motives in presenting it. The student is left to choose the argument that makes the most sense to the student.

So can syllogism be used to make an argument for the existence of God? Yes and no.

I did my damndest for most of two decades to explain away everything I had ever heard or been taught about religion. I studied all the great religions and found that every single one of them contains kernels of truth and every one of them comes up lacking when it comes to answering the great cosmic questions that we probably aren't intended to know.

I stripped away every component of Christian beliefs/teaching that did not absolutely have to be there and arrived at the bare bones of what, for me, is truth:

1. God is
2. God loves me
3. We are not intended to fully understand it at least for now.
And that is based on empirical evidence.

I understand you. Nevertheless, the classical arguments for God’s existence are not about religion or faith as such. They're about the "science" of logic and the universal first principles of ontology that God imparted to mankind, the Imago Dei, by which we may all know that God is and that mankind is morally accountable to Him. These arguments have been variously asserted by the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, David, Christ and the Apostle Paul in scripture, and they go to the concerns of evangelistic apologetics. While they have been asserted by others, including the pagan, natural philosopher Aristotle, they are not extra-biblical.

You're getting into the area of really heavy duty theology here, though, and such is foolishness to the non believer who doesn't believe those figures you listed even existed, much less that they had any particular insight into the ways of God. To use their arguments as authoritative is as futile as saying the Bible is true. How do you know? Because it says so.

However, Einstein and Spinoza before him latched onto the basic principle you are bringing up here: that the logical mind that observes the universe and all the wonders in it with an open mind almost has to have a sense of some sort of intelligence behind it all. At least such a concept is logical and reasonable to embrace. Only the most close minded deny such a possibility.

But again, with all due respect, that's not right, Foxfyre, that is to say, the first paragraph of your post is not right, either factually or biblically. There's really nothing heavy duty about the readily self-evident imperatives regarding the problem of origin. The rational faculty of the Imago Dei was not corrupted by the Fall. That is the one thing that was left intact, "so that they are without excuse." Even the relativist, for example, cannot explain how two mutually exclusive or diametrically opposed ideas could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. Even if reality, in spite of all apparent indications, beyond the confines of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness (which entail the inherent laws of logic: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) were irrational: we wouldn't know the difference, as our minds and our perception of things are bound by these absolutes. (In post #57, Quantum Wingbag gets at something profoundly true: the apparent world beyond our minds is filtered through our senses. The best we can do is operate on the logical proofs of justification and the apparent results of systematic falsification, but such, objectively speaking, cannot be said to be the stuff of absolute certainty.)

But I need not bring the Bible into the fray with regard to the problem of origin. I only mentioned the various biblical figures to let you know that everyone of the classical arguments for God's existence have been made in scripture. They are not to be spurned by the Christian, as they go to the concerns of evangelistic apologetics. I need not appeal to any authority at all! Once again, the imperatives regarding the problem of origin are readily and universally apparent to all. The initial problem of origin is not theological, but philosophical.

Errors in logic are not necessarily the same thing as closed-mindedness, but closed-mindedness will certainly get in the way of recognizing errors in logic.

For example, what is this resistance to the uncomplicated notion that the existence of the universe coupled with the imperatives of human consciousness are the evidence for God's existence? What? A mind-bogglingly vast and complex universe, albeit, beautifully arrayed and systematically well-ordered, or so it seems, is not evidence for a Sentient origin?! LOL! What folks are doing here is merely confounding the distinction between absolute certainty and the logical proofs of justification derived when reason is brought to bear on the evidence, and that is precisely what the classical arguments for God's existence do. "The shallow think" of the new atheism and the normative relativism of the post-modern world has merely obscured the implications of these arguments via logical fallacy and misapprehensions.

I have no power to convince anyone that God exists, but there is nothing mysteriously heavy duty about the fact that the ultimate origin of the universe is an eternally self-subsistent something that is either Sentient or inanimate. There is nothing mysteriously heavy duty about the fact that the atheist necessarily concedes the ontologically independent existence of the idea of God in his very denial that their be any substance behind it. There is nothing mysteriously heavy duty about the following observation universally apparent to all:

For the idea of God—which contains within itself its own specific nature and attributes—imposes itself on the human mind without the human mind willing that it do so. In other words, the idea objectively exists in and of itself, and the atheist necessarily acknowledges this every time he denies there be any substance behind it.

. . . This impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a Being Who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent Being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent.

That does not mean, however, that this objectively apparent impression constitutes an absolute proof for either alternative. It demonstrates that it's at the base of knowledge, that it's derived from reason, not faith.

I have no interest in proving God's existence to anyone, just in demonstrating the absurdities that arise from the denial of the possibility, which, incidentally, do not plague the bald assertion that God must be whatsoever. The reason for this is self-evident: the idea of God pertains to the origin of the universe, not to its nonexistence, while the unqualified denial of God's existence detours around an inescapable imperative: the undeniable possibility. The former stems from larger considerations that do not interrupt the natural course of logic; the latter is akin to the blind devotion of religious fanaticism.​

The notion that the existence of the universe does not constitute evidence for God's existence is silly. The notion that the assertion of God's existence is not based on reason is silly. The notion that the inherently contradictory assertion of atheism carries as much or more power than the argument for God's existence is silly.

For those still struggling to clear the cobwebs from your minds, ask yourselves this question: What exactly is the evidence for atheism? The existence of the universe is evidence that God doesn't exist. How does that work? Why is that rationally problematical, oddly startling in an almost visceral sense?

My first paragraph is factually wrong? Biblically wrong? Okay how, since I haven't disputed or challenged your argument in any way? I have only pointed out that your argument is seen as foolishness to the non believer if he even understands it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me. I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers. I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith. There is nothing wrong with belief. Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself. If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.

I don't know. I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory. There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody. And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it. For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement. I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science. But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65. I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument. I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light. I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point, I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..

So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.

Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term. For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic. The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her. It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it. He/she will block that out of his/her mind. The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant. Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.

Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it. It 'feels right'. He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation. In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.

Note to others: I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.

What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do. In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.

But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions. For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering. Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever. And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.

 

[sealybobo]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

They assume and want you to assume those stories in their bibles are true.

Example:

God talked to Adam
God talked to Noah
God sent Jesus and Jesus did miracles
So god is real

Never crosses their mind that these stories might be made up. Ask too many questions and you'll be told you just have to have faith.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They assume and want you to assume those stories in their bibles are true.

Example:

God talked to Adam
God talked to Noah
God sent Jesus and Jesus did miracles
So god is real

Never crosses their mind that these stories might be made up. Ask too many questions and you'll be told you just have to have faith.

Kinda the way you assume your blithering idiocy is intelligent?

FYI, no ontological argument stacks up in the real world, which is why no one uses them outside philosophical debates.

 

[sealybobo]

Another intellectually challenged atheist demanding physical proof of a spiritual existence. You're either smart enough to be able to think outside the box or you're not, and NP obviously isn't.

So why do you believe in this spiritual existence without proof? Science says it's all in your head and that we made it all up because we have wild imaginations, we have a healthy fear of the unknown, we are curious and we want to believe.

Science went outside the box and challenged what our uneducated and imaginative & fearful & superstitious ancestors made up.

“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” – Tim Minchin

There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.

In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

 

[sealybobo]

They assume and want you to assume those stories in their bibles are true.

Example:

God talked to Adam
God talked to Noah
God sent Jesus and Jesus did miracles
So god is real

Never crosses their mind that these stories might be made up. Ask too many questions and you'll be told you just have to have faith.

Kinda the way you assume your blithering idiocy is intelligent?

FYI, no ontological argument stacks up in the real world, which is why no one uses them outside philosophical debates.

What's your point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So why do you believe in this spiritual existence without proof? Science says it's all in your head and that we made it all up because we have wild imaginations, we have a healthy fear of the unknown, we are curious and we want to believe.

Perhaps he understand the difference between your misuse of the word proof and the real definition of it.

By the way, what makes you think he doesn't have proof? Other than your personal ignorance and bias?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What's your point?

Sorry, forgot who I was talking to.

You are an uneducated ignoramus who doesn't understand anything.

Does that help, or should I use smaller words?

 

[sealybobo]

So why do you believe in this spiritual existence without proof? Science says it's all in your head and that we made it all up because we have wild imaginations, we have a healthy fear of the unknown, we are curious and we want to believe.

Perhaps he understand the difference between your misuse of the word proof and the real definition of it.

By the way, what makes you think he doesn't have proof? Other than your personal ignorance and bias?

Because you and he can't provide any. If you have some proof, show it.

 

[sealybobo]

What's your point?

Sorry, forgot who I was talking to.

You are an uneducated ignoramus who doesn't understand anything.

Does that help, or should I use smaller words?

Do you talk to the lord with that mouth or that attitude? God just told me you are a ****.

 

[S.J.]

Another intellectually challenged atheist demanding physical proof of a spiritual existence. You're either smart enough to be able to think outside the box or you're not, and NP obviously isn't.

So why do you believe in this spiritual existence without proof? Science says it's all in your head and that we made it all up because we have wild imaginations, we have a healthy fear of the unknown, we are curious and we want to believe.

Science went outside the box and challenged what our uneducated and imaginative & fearful & superstitious ancestors made up.

“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” – Tim Minchin

There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.

In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

God does not reveal himself up close to people like you, whose only interest in discussions like this is to mock and ridicule those who have seen and recognized his presence. I base my belief on what I've seen and experienced and I won't hang those very personal experiences out for ridicule by arrogant and condescending people such as yourself. I don't need to convince you. If I thought you were truly interested in finding God, I would indulge you but I know that's not your objective,