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

[Quantum Windbag]

"On the contrary, it is completely empirical. The mere fact that people can look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion from it does not mean it is not evidence, it just proves people can think for themselves" is a statement means I arrived at a different conclusion from what the evidence may suggest.

That conclusion is wrong. Replicate the "proof" for your conclusion. If you can't, you can only suggest.

The atheists inherit the same issue with empirical proof: they don't have it.

You want me to prove that people can think? Someone already did that.

Cogito ergo sum.

 

[Justin Davis]

I have not been refuted, you bloviated baselessly.

You cannot prove that god is necessary for knowledge without saying 'god is knowledge,' but unfortunately for bloviators of america, that doesn't work. Proof doesnt work like that. You're ten levels below me, step your life game up.

Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge.

If you haven't reduced your studies to that point yet, you've got MILES to go. Get going, don't let your typing walls of meaningless text stop you. You're behind already.

I have read this thread with much interest. You have conceded everyone of the points. All of you atheists have. Sometimes outright, because not to would make you look foolish because it's so obvious, other times without realizing what your really saying. Hollie doesn't even realize what she's really saying most of the time more than any of you other atheists. It's sick, but it's also hilarious. I get it now more than ever after that demonstration. The things that make the teleological argument unassailable are the same things that are logically universal. These things just are logically, whether they're real or not outside our heads. Once you see the argument altogether, it's self-evident that it can't be logically countered. You're smart enough to see this. Why are you intentionally fooling yourself? What are you afraid of? What is is. That's nothing to be afraid of.

Typically pointless. The teleological doesn't exist in the relevant science community. It only survives as a relic of christian fundamentalism.

Hi Hollie:
Actually, Francis MacNutt who teaches and trains people in spiritual healing
has found that the doctors he worked with were more open to scientific studies
and proof of the process than religious followers who were OBSTRUCTING the process of
sharing this knowledge.

The spiritual knowledge has survived DESPITE the abuses and corruption of
religious churches that have censored and denied this knowledge to others.

If you bothered to research the methods of spiritual healing practiced
and taught effectively by well reputed sources (some are listed at freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
you would see that science and medicine backs up what is taught in religion.

Because religious fundamentalists fear that people will worship and depend on science,
many of them have OPPOSED studying and proving these methods work medically.

It scares them to think you don't have to
treat natural healing energy and processes as "theological or faith based"
to prove these same things work naturally in keeping with science!

It's still the same process, and no, it does not just exist because of Christian fundamentalism
but this knowledge has been suppressed because of the religious extremism rejecting science.

All the same things taught in Christianity can be proved and demonstrated
using scientific methods of research and documenting stats and studies.

There is no conflict as you imagine, the same way that
Christian Fundamentalists fear the worship of science.

They have not pushed but have impeded the process of spiritual healing
and understanding the process, due to the same fear and unforgiveness
that makes you reject anything "theological" the same way.

Are you imagining the that arguments for God's existence are not sustainable in the face of real science? I'm asking because your comments follow her allegation that they're relics of fundamentalism. As far as I can tell from Hollie's posts it doesn't look she knows much of anything about real science except what atheistic scientific authorities have told her to believe.

 

[Hollie]

I have not been refuted, you bloviated baselessly.

You cannot prove that god is necessary for knowledge without saying 'god is knowledge,' but unfortunately for bloviators of america, that doesn't work. Proof doesnt work like that. You're ten levels below me, step your life game up.

Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge.

If you haven't reduced your studies to that point yet, you've got MILES to go. Get going, don't let your typing walls of meaningless text stop you. You're behind already.

I have read this thread with much interest. You have conceded everyone of the points. All of you atheists have. Sometimes outright, because not to would make you look foolish because it's so obvious, other times without realizing what your really saying. Hollie doesn't even realize what she's really saying most of the time more than any of you other atheists. It's sick, but it's also hilarious. I get it now more than ever after that demonstration. The things that make the teleological argument unassailable are the same things that are logically universal. These things just are logically, whether they're real or not outside our heads. Once you see the argument altogether, it's self-evident that it can't be logically countered. You're smart enough to see this. Why are you intentionally fooling yourself? What are you afraid of? What is is. That's nothing to be afraid of.

Typically pointless. The teleological doesn't exist in the relevant science community. It only survives as a relic of christian fundamentalism.

Hi Hollie:
Actually, Francis MacNutt who teaches and trains people in spiritual healing
has found that the doctors he worked with were more open to scientific studies
and proof of the process than religious followers who were OBSTRUCTING the process of
sharing this knowledge.

The spiritual knowledge has survived DESPITE the abuses and corruption of
religious churches that have censored and denied this knowledge to others.

If you bothered to research the methods of spiritual healing practiced
and taught effectively by well reputed sources (some are listed at freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
you would see that science and medicine backs up what is taught in religion.

Because religious fundamentalists fear that people will worship and depend on science,
many of them have OPPOSED studying and proving these methods work medically.

It scares them to think you don't have to
treat natural healing energy and processes as "theological or faith based"
to prove these same things work naturally in keeping with science!

It's still the same process, and no, it does not just exist because of Christian fundamentalism
but this knowledge has been suppressed because of the religious extremism rejecting science.

All the same things taught in Christianity can be proved and demonstrated
using scientific methods of research and documenting stats and studies.

There is no conflict as you imagine, the same way that
Christian Fundamentalists fear the worship of science.

They have not pushed but have impeded the process of spiritual healing
and understanding the process, due to the same fear and unforgiveness
that makes you reject anything "theological" the same way.

Are you imagining the that arguments for God's existence are not sustainable in the face of real science? I'm asking because your comments follow her allegation that they relics of fundamentalism. As far as I can tell from Hollie's posts it doesn't look she knows much of anything about real science except what atheistic scientific authorities have told her to believe.

Are you imagining that you have a point to make? What other science beside real science is there? And lastly, no, there are no supportable arguments for the existence of your gods or anyone else's gods.

 

[Justin Davis]

knowledge can exist independent of.god absolutely

That is a premise without conclusive proof.

So you're saying that I should worship you seeing as how you're omniscient? But if you're God how can knowledge exist independent of you? Do you exist or not? Wait a minute. I got it now. What came first, the chicken crossing the road or the Mack truck that ran it down? I'm so confused.

 

[Justin Davis]

I have not been refuted, you bloviated baselessly.

You cannot prove that god is necessary for knowledge without saying 'god is knowledge,' but unfortunately for bloviators of america, that doesn't work. Proof doesnt work like that. You're ten levels below me, step your life game up.

Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge.

If you haven't reduced your studies to that point yet, you've got MILES to go. Get going, don't let your typing walls of meaningless text stop you. You're behind already.

I have read this thread with much interest. You have conceded everyone of the points. All of you atheists have. Sometimes outright, because not to would make you look foolish because it's so obvious, other times without realizing what your really saying. Hollie doesn't even realize what she's really saying most of the time more than any of you other atheists. It's sick, but it's also hilarious. I get it now more than ever after that demonstration. The things that make the teleological argument unassailable are the same things that are logically universal. These things just are logically, whether they're real or not outside our heads. Once you see the argument altogether, it's self-evident that it can't be logically countered. You're smart enough to see this. Why are you intentionally fooling yourself? What are you afraid of? What is is. That's nothing to be afraid of.

Typically pointless. The teleological doesn't exist in the relevant science community. It only survives as a relic of christian fundamentalism.

Hi Hollie:
Actually, Francis MacNutt who teaches and trains people in spiritual healing
has found that the doctors he worked with were more open to scientific studies
and proof of the process than religious followers who were OBSTRUCTING the process of
sharing this knowledge.

The spiritual knowledge has survived DESPITE the abuses and corruption of
religious churches that have censored and denied this knowledge to others.

If you bothered to research the methods of spiritual healing practiced
and taught effectively by well reputed sources (some are listed at freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
you would see that science and medicine backs up what is taught in religion.

Because religious fundamentalists fear that people will worship and depend on science,
many of them have OPPOSED studying and proving these methods work medically.

It scares them to think you don't have to
treat natural healing energy and processes as "theological or faith based"
to prove these same things work naturally in keeping with science!

It's still the same process, and no, it does not just exist because of Christian fundamentalism
but this knowledge has been suppressed because of the religious extremism rejecting science.

All the same things taught in Christianity can be proved and demonstrated
using scientific methods of research and documenting stats and studies.

There is no conflict as you imagine, the same way that
Christian Fundamentalists fear the worship of science.

They have not pushed but have impeded the process of spiritual healing
and understanding the process, due to the same fear and unforgiveness
that makes you reject anything "theological" the same way.

Are you imagining the that arguments for God's existence are not sustainable in the face of real science? I'm asking because your comments follow her allegation that they relics of fundamentalism. As far as I can tell from Hollie's posts it doesn't look she knows much of anything about real science except what atheistic scientific authorities have told her to believe.

Are you imagining that you have a point to make? What other science beside real science is there? And lastly, no, there are no supportable arguments for the existence of your gods or anyone else's gods.

Don't confuse me. I'm still trying to figure out what came first, the tree or the monkey in the tree.

 

[Justin Davis]

The main premise is not demonstrably true, either.

That's what I keep saying 'bloviation' for, because that's all that that is.

Well, from where I'm standing the prospect for an absolute ground for knowledge doesn't look good unless the ever-changing material world is firmly anchored to something that's constitutionally immutable. What you do't get about this is that you are either saying that you can prove God doesn't exist or that you are God. But what do I know? I'm still trying to figure out if the roof on my house came first or the dog pooping on my roof came first.

 

[JakeStarkey]

knowledge can exist independent of.god absolutely

That is a premise without conclusive proof.

So you're saying that I should worship you seeing as how you're omniscient? But if you're God how can knowledge exist independent of you? Do you exist or not? Wait a minute. I got it now. What came first, the chicken crossing the road or the Mack truck that ran it down? I'm so confused.

Justin, put down the drink. No one said anyone should worship me. You cannot limit or box God, because he is independent of you. Yes, you are very confused.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The main premise is not demonstrably true, either.

That's what I keep saying 'bloviation' for, because that's all that that is.

Well, from where I'm standing the prospect for an absolute ground for knowledge doesn't look good unless the ever-changing material world is firmly anchored to something that's constitutionally immutable. What you do't get about this is that you are either saying that you can prove God doesn't exist or that you are God. But what do I know? I'm still trying to figure out if the roof on my house came first or the dog pooping on my roof came first.

What I am saying is that you cannot prove God exists or doesn't exist.

Not to worry: I will keep you straight every time you go off the rails of reality.

 

[Justin Davis]

knowledge can exist independent of.god absolutely

That is a premise without conclusive proof.

So you're saying that I should worship you seeing as how you're omniscient? But if you're God how can knowledge exist independent of you? Do you exist or not? Wait a minute. I got it now. What came first, the chicken crossing the road or the Mack truck that ran it down? I'm so confused.

Justin, put down the drink. No one said anyone should worship me. You cannot limit or box God, because he is independent of you. Yes, you are very confused.

That's what I've always believed but now you're telling me that's not true. Wait a minute. You are telling me that's true now. Why did you have Him in that box a few minutes ago? Man alive, now I'm really confused. What came first, the box or the drink?

 

[JakeStarkey]

knowledge can exist independent of.god absolutely

That is a premise without conclusive proof.

So you're saying that I should worship you seeing as how you're omniscient? But if you're God how can knowledge exist independent of you? Do you exist or not? Wait a minute. I got it now. What came first, the chicken crossing the road or the Mack truck that ran it down? I'm so confused.

Justin, put down the drink. No one said anyone should worship me. You cannot limit or box God, because he is independent of you. Yes, you are very confused.

That's what I've always believed but now you're telling me that's not true. Wait a minute. You are telling me that's true now. Why did you have Him in that box a few minutes ago? Man alive, now I'm really confused. What came first, the box or the drink?

That is not what you said, and now you say you didn't? The thread is testimony against your futile attempt to muddy the waters. Yes, you are very confused. Not to worry, I am here to keep you straight.

 

[Justin Davis]

The discussion of whether or not 'nothing' preceded existence has been going in since pre enlightenment and has not been figured out scientifically nor philosophically.

So, good luck writing that off windbag and bloviator.

Again, the mundane as if it were profound!

And once again, Mr. Slogan Think of the premeditated circumvention of those things that inconveniently render your guff moot, we already covered that. No more digressions. Until you can explain to me how something could come from nothing, you're not packing anything remotely like a rationally justifiable objection to stop (*sound of screeching wheels and a crash*) the analysis of the rationally justifiable knowledge pertaining to the issue of origin. Besides, you guys have already asserted arguments presupposing the justifiable knowledge that is reasonably pertinent, demonstrating that you understand that the spaghetti monsters of nothingness, while curious, though not really, are of no practical significance. Dead end.

So that will be the last time I entertain that silliness. This along with your silliness regarding the existence-origin dichotomy: File 13.

By the way, why don't you define existence so that we may all see just how conveniently closed-minded your thinking is.

God I hope so. If that nothing monster rears its head again I will start drinking. Where's my box? It was here a minute ago.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Until you can explain to me how something could come from nothing" is a wonderful condemnation of both natural morality and atheism because neither can prove or disprove the premise.

 

[Justin Davis]

That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant. Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true. The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true. You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true. In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.

You have a good point, if you ignore the fact that you can have a false premise and still reach a true conclusion.

Caveat. He has a valid point in general. His charge, however, that some "step is being skipped", i.e., that the major premise in the teleological argument is merely being declared to be true is patently false. The universally apparent imperatives of human intuition prove his claim to be patently false. His purely academic objection does not hold. And I will drive home that point momentarily with regard to what he's ultimately implying in this case utterly unawares.

Can you spell "pompous blowhard who tries to make a point but trips over his own inability to string words into meaningful sentences"?

H - o - l - l - i - e.

I didn't expect you would quibble over your pompous bluster.

And for the record, I did not offer the deduction you're assigning to me.

You ASKED ME if there's knowledge without a knower, I didn't say "this is my proof of knowledge without god, there is no knowledge without a knower."


So I don't know why you're NOW inserting that, instead of the actual knowledge I presented, which is absolute and is a fact independent of god because of the impossibility of the contrary: I am not all knowing.

That is knowledge and fact with or without god as its basis, the contrary is impossible.

Seriously? You poor thing. How does anything exist if in fact God is the necessary uncaused cause? Dude!

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.


The emboldened in your post, a step or two in logic = God does not exist.

Prove it, not all-knowing one. LOL!

But never mind. Moving on. Everybody else gets it except the mindless atheists, materialists or hard methodological naturalists who can't objectively separate themselves from their personal biases long enough to grasp the obvious.

This post....

Means that my post......


Went WELL the fuck over your head.


Also, I reject the comment 'god is the necessary uncaused cause' just as easily as you asserted it.


Oh.....that was easy. Huh? Just rejecting it like that? Out of hand, sort of like you asserted it???

Lol god damn you're dull.

That was an "if" in front of "God is the necessary uncaused cause." He's trying to help you see what you're missing. You just don't get it. You keep forgetting that you can't prove God doesn't exist or you don't know if He exists. Add that to what the idea of God means. Put those things together, and you can see that what you're saying is absurd. How do you keep missing the obvious: exist independent of and/or without God. Your argument contradicts what you're trying to prove. This is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. He's dull? From where I'm standing you're talking about the edge on your knife blade. It's hilarious. But I'm still looking for my box.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither the unthinking believer or the unthinking atheist above can prove their points.

 

[Justin Davis]

"Until you can explain to me how something could come from nothing" is a wonderful condemnation of both natural morality and atheism because neither can prove or disprove the premise.

It's official. I'm off the wagon. Now I'll have to start worrying about those spiders again. Damn you to perdition, Jake. But seriously that's not the point. I'm getting more from M.D.R.'s explanations than I've gotten from books. His way of putting things isn't hard. Read the book I'm trying to read right now on Christian theology by Henry. That's hard. M.D.R. has got these things down to a level that some of Henry's ideas are finally starting to make sense to me. And don't get me started on Spinoza. That guy's a full bottle of aspirin headache. But nothing has nothing to do with proving or disproving atheism. That much I can tell you. I don't know what you mean about natural morality and nothing though.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.

A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.

No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..

. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.

There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.

Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:

All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.

And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:

Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)

That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant. Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true. The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true. You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true. In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.

We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism. But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument. But a valid syllogistic argument? Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.

But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.

Now if we go with the opening statement that:

Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.

. . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that? Or what is your argument for that?

Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?

But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:

Knowledge exists.

Therefore there is a God.

Where this breaks down is the assumption that if the statement is not challenged it must be true. It is not the responsibility of others to challenge the statement, it is the responsibility of the one making the statement to support it. If you cannot support it, then the statement is not valid. It might actually be true, but you can't use it to support the conclusion.

No. What it breaks down to is that if the statement cannot be effectively challenged, then we logically hold open the possibility that it could be true.

Of course it could be true. I am not making any attempt to say that it is not true. I haven't got a clue if it is true or not. In fact, your premise could be completely false and your conclusion true. I am only saying this particular argument is not valid because you have not demonstrated the validity of your premise.

Nor have you challenged or made any effort to expose it as false. Nor do either of us have any means known to humankind that can challenge or support the statement to the satisfaction of anybody else. Some things have to be experienced in order to be known. And some things are left for us to wonder about and continue to search for answers.

 

[Justin Davis]

Neither the unthinking believer or the unthinking atheist above can prove their points.

Not true. You just don't understand what the point of the teleological argument is. You keep thinking it all wrong. I don't have any problem understanding M.DR. You don't understand it. If you did you wouldn't say that. Like I said, this is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

 

[Justin Davis]

M. D., you write very prettily as you demonstrate your "rank intellectual dishonesty."

You are only telling us why you think God exists, but your belief without concrete empirical data and repeatable proof remains only your belief.

.

This is hilarious. That's not what he's telling you. That's not even what the argument is telling you. Where is that dang box?

 

[Justin Davis]

MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.

A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion. The conclusion is true if the two statements are true. That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true. This is a syllogistic argument:

All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.

This is pretty much the argument being presented. What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true. I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient. Garbage in.... garbage out.

Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.

A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.

No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..

. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.

There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.

Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:

All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.

And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:

Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)

That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant. Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true. The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true. You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true. In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.

But they're not being declared to be true by default. The teleological syllogism is a presuppositional syllogism. That's what you don't understand.

 

[Justin Davis]

That is not an answer. The claim is made that it is evidence and it needs to be supported.

Sigh.

Life exists, and that has been proven by science, that makes it evidence. The only real question now is what conclusion we draw from the evidence, not whether or not it actually is evidence. The fact that anyone has to point this out just indicates how pathetic the education system in this country has become.

From where I'm standing it seems like 99% of the obvious has to be pointed out to some over and over again. Like I said, this is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.