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

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm, the second clause of your sentence, that I bolded, was not my conclusion. You made that up out of whole cloth.

But the first clause, is that it's an axiom - the impossibility of the contrary makes it true.

If it could somehow be wrong - name one instance or situation in which it could..............I'll be very open minded for you.

I claim it is absolute, because of the impossibility of the contrary.

You can either name a scenario where the contrary works, or sit the **** down about it.

Are you abandoning your position that the only possible definition of god is the one you reject?

 

[G.T.]

That you admit that concrete proof for the existence of or not of deity is all that matters to me, guys. You can dance on the head of a pin all you want: go for it.

Now having made sure we are all on the same sheet of music, I am a believer in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He calls me by my first name and I call Him Lord. Although Satan knows your name, some of you are letting it call you by your addictions, where as Jesus, who always knows your addictions (consider our radical atheists), calls you by your name.

Thanks for the opportunity to share, folks

Shut up, you idiot. You have concrete evidence, beginning with the universe itself and it's contents, including the things in your pin head that everybody knows: objectively, universally and absolutely, dummy. You don't care about concrete evidence at all.

Yours is the stuff of a purely academic substance that amounts to nothing more than a propositionally justifiable objection, which, of course, is not justifiable knowledge, as such is not explicable or demonstrable. And like others, you still don't understand what evidence and proof and knowledge are. In the meantime, every piece of the evidence for God's existence is justifiable knowledge: demonstrably, authoritatively and intuitively, you dope.

The same evidence is concrete for any "origins" theory.

Because we're discussing its origin, it BEING HERE AT ALL is evidence of what or however it originated.

If at all, it could be eternal.

 

[G.T.]

Umm, the second clause of your sentence, that I bolded, was not my conclusion. You made that up out of whole cloth.

But the first clause, is that it's an axiom - the impossibility of the contrary makes it true.

If it could somehow be wrong - name one instance or situation in which it could..............I'll be very open minded for you.

I claim it is absolute, because of the impossibility of the contrary.

You can either name a scenario where the contrary works, or sit the **** down about it.

Are you abandoning your position that the only possible definition of god is the one you reject?

I'm asserting something.

I'm asserting that whether or not an omniscient god exists, in THIS UNIVERSE, an all knower cannot not know it is all knowing.

And that is axiomatic knowledge.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i posted a pretty funny joke you epic moron.

Funny is a matter of opinion.

For example, I think the fact that you posted something you now claim you do not believe is hilarious. On the other hand, you think me pointing out how funny that is indicates that I am angry.

FYI, it is almost impossible to be angry about anything when you are rolling around the floor laughing at the stupidity of idiots.

 

[G.T.]

Umm, the second clause of your sentence, that I bolded, was not my conclusion. You made that up out of whole cloth.

But the first clause, is that it's an axiom - the impossibility of the contrary makes it true.

If it could somehow be wrong - name one instance or situation in which it could..............I'll be very open minded for you.

I claim it is absolute, because of the impossibility of the contrary.

You can either name a scenario where the contrary works, or sit the **** down about it.

Are you abandoning your position that the only possible definition of god is the one you reject?

by the way, thats not my position at all



and thats like the 80th time you argued against something i didnt even hold as a position of mine

but carry on, ego driven.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The same evidence is concrete for any "origins" theory.

Because we're discussing its origin, it BEING HERE AT ALL is evidence of what or however it originated.

If at all, it could be eternal.

Other than the fact that science has pretty conclusively established that the universe is not eternal you have a pretty good point, for an idiot.

 

[G.T.]

i posted a pretty funny joke you epic moron.

Funny is a matter of opinion.

For example, I think the fact that you posted something you now claim you do not believe is hilarious. On the other hand, you think me pointing out how funny that is indicates that I am angry.

FYI, it is almost impossible to be angry about anything when you are rolling around the floor laughing at the stupidity of idiots.

so everytime you tell a joke you believe in its contents?

you're a weird guy.

 

[mudwhistle]

One bit of knowledge I have acquired purely via observation and reason doing this message board stuff for a number of years now, is that some people play obtuse, stupid, belligerent, hateful, insulting for sport. I can't say for certain, but I suspect some people--maybe Hollie and Jake?--entertain themselves by trying to goad or manipulate us in that way. It can be by being deliberately personally insulting while using diversionary tactics or it can be by being deliberately obtuse or non sequitur. They don't care that they don't have our respect because we certainly don't have theirs. But we give them exactly what they want when we take the bait. I don't always succeed, but I do make an effort not to take that bait.

Even more interesting is how often the Atheists and anti-religionists are drawn to religious threads like flies. They almost never are interested in discussing concepts but are there to declare how stupid anybody is to believe in God or really in anything larger than ourselves. I don't understand those who are so driven to destroy the faith of those to whom their faith is important and beneficial, but I do wonder what is at work that makes the subject so fascinating to so many non-believers.

One might even think it is another bit of evidence for the existence of God.

To put that into a syllogistic argument:

One cannot be passionate about something that does not exist.
Atheists/anti-religionists are passionate about discrediting God.
Therefore God exists.

Agree. But sometimes I do take the bait in order to highlight precisely why the atheist is so obviously wrong, and the difference between those who are earnestly trying to understand things and those who aren't.

The interesting thing about Jake, which further undermines his credibility for all to see, is that he does believe God exists. So what he's really telling all us is that his belief is blind faith, when in fact there is good reason to believe that God is, that this conviction can be solidly based on evidentiary facts and logical proofs, with the premises of the latter being objectively and independently verifiable.

Hence, just what kind of fool believes God exists but closes his mind to the very evidentiary facts and logical proofs which substantiate his instinctual inclination?

Answer: A damn fool, one that is even more foolish than the closed-minded atheist.

Hey! I believe in god and the devil now. Last night I saw an angel in the middle of the night and it told me to believe.

Do you believe I saw an angel in the middle of the night? So why the hell would we believe any unbelievable story you tell us?

It would rather depend on your reputation for veracity and commitment to truth wouldn't it? There are people who could tell me they saw an angel the middle of the night, and I would know beyond all reasonable doubt that they saw something that they identified as an angel. Would I believe it was in fact an angel? Not so much but I would believe the person believed it was an angel and that he wasn't hallucinating or making it up. I would file it away as knowledge that could be useful if I ran into other credible people who testified to such phenomena.

Whether I accept their interpretation of things or not, there are people I believe to be sincere, honest, and truthful to the best of their ability.

And other people not so much.

Oh I believe they believe it too. I know my friends are sincere every last one of them.

You sure couldn't have discerned that from your post that came across as rather snotty, condescending, judgmental, and intentionally combative.

Yeah,....******......

 

[G.T.]

The same evidence is concrete for any "origins" theory.

Because we're discussing its origin, it BEING HERE AT ALL is evidence of what or however it originated.

If at all, it could be eternal.

Other than the fact that science has pretty conclusively established that the universe is not eternal you have a pretty good point, for an idiot.

Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.

It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.

And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm asserting something.

I'm asserting that whether or not an omniscient god exists, in THIS UNIVERSE, an all knower cannot not know it is all knowing.

And that is axiomatic knowledge.

Actually, it isn't because I am questioning it. If axiomatic really worked the way you think you would have to accept Rawling's axioms with the same lack of thought you apply to yours. I see no reason to believe that it is impossible for someone, or something, to know everything, but be unaware that he actually knows it. A good example of this would be some type of computer program that is charged with gathering all possible knowledge, but is unable to access the data it collects.

If you can provide some actual argument in defense of your "axiomatic knowledge" feel free. If not, feel free to simply declare victory.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

by the way, thats not my position at all



and thats like the 80th time you argued against something i didnt even hold as a position of mine

but carry on, ego driven.

It isn't?

Then why do you continually argue that there is no evidence that the god I believe in exists? Especially given the fact that you don't know what I believe, or what evidence I used to reach that belief?

 

[G.T.]

I'm asserting something.

I'm asserting that whether or not an omniscient god exists, in THIS UNIVERSE, an all knower cannot not know it is all knowing.

And that is axiomatic knowledge.

Actually, it isn't because I am questioning it. If axiomatic really worked the way you think you would have to accept Rawling's axioms with the same lack of thought you apply to yours. I see no reason to believe that it is impossible for someone, or something, to know everything, but be unaware that he actually knows it. A good example of this would be some type of computer program that is charged with gathering all possible knowledge, but is unable to access the data it collects.

If you can provide some actual argument in defense of your "axiomatic knowledge" feel free. If not, feel free to simply declare victory.

In order to question it, you need to present a basis for said questioning.

You said: "I see no eason to believe that it is impossible for someone, or something, to know everything, but be unaware that he actually knows it."

The unawareness you describe, is knowledge they don't know hence negating their all knowingness.

Try again.

Edit to add: the computer's inability to supersede its programming and access its contents is an example of knowledge that it does not know. Plus, bad example because the "all knowledge" its set to collect would necessarily include the fact that it itself contains all knowledge - therefore, it KNOWS it knows everything - or else it hasn't COLLECTED all knowledge.

 

[G.T.]

by the way, thats not my position at all



and thats like the 80th time you argued against something i didnt even hold as a position of mine

but carry on, ego driven.

It isn't?

Then why do you continually argue that there is no evidence that the god I believe in exists? Especially given the fact that you don't know what I believe, or what evidence I used to reach that belief?

I argue that the evidence is not conclusive, or even suggestive since it is a "choice" what you consider it evidence OF, since there remains other, also unproven or not disproven, explanations.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.

It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.

And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.

Even if that was true, which it isn't, science predicts the future hot/cold death of the universe because entropy is increasing constantly, which proves it is not eternal. That makes your claim that it might be eternal flat out wrong.

Just to give you a basic primer of why you are wrong to claim the science says all the energy of the universe was in the singularity, the laws we now consider universal did not exist until after Big Bang. I don't remember the exact time frame, but there was a time the laws of physics did not exist. Thus, any argument based on the laws of physics, which is what you are trying to d when you say all the energy of the universe existed in the singularity, is inherently flawed. Essentially, you are arguing that the universe had a creator when you make your argument, you are just to stupid to understand what you are saying.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Edit post #897

The second paragraph should read:

But folks can't see any of this until they (1) understand things like what objective evidence is, what proofs are and what real knowledge is (both subjective and objective, demonstrable and non-demonstrable) and (2) what the fundamental absolutes regarding the problems of existence and origin are, which everybody knows once they look at them.​

(Thank you, Justin, for the tip. It is poorly written and confusing. This is better. The terms non-empirical and immediate are confusing. These guys are rubbing off on me. Simply: demonstrable and non-demonstrable. There's also a disagreement in a number in the first paragraph. LOL! Multitasking.)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.

It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.

And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.

Unless you are arguing for the existence of a God that managed to override the laws of physics, you are not making any sense.

 

[G.T.]

Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.

It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.

And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.

Even if that was true, which it isn't, science predicts the future hot/cold death of the universe because entropy is increasing constantly, which proves it is not eternal. That makes your claim that it might be eternal flat out wrong.

Just to give you a basic primer of why you are wrong to claim the science says all the energy of the universe was in the singularity, the laws we now consider universal did not exist until after Big Bang. I don't remember the exact time frame, but there was a time the laws of physics did not exist. Thus, any argument based on the laws of physics, which is what you are trying to d when you say all the energy of the universe existed in the singularity, is inherently flawed. Essentially, you are arguing that the universe had a creator when you make your argument, you are just to stupid to understand what you are saying.

Thye laws of physics break down within the singularity, yes.

But I did not invoke the laws of physics.

So - time #81 or so where you argued against something I never said.

Keep going, silly. Your blood pressure can handle it I promise.

 

[G.T.]

Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.

It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.

And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.

Unless you are arguing for the existence of a God that managed to override the laws of physics, you are not making any sense.

I'm not invoking the law that energy cannot be created n'or destroyed.

I'm invoking the fact that the gravity of the universe was once a singularity - *but* said singularity's age & origin is not yet determined.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In order to question it, you need to present a basis for said questioning.

I did, oh he who thinks he understand things.

You said: "I see no eason to believe that it is impossible for someone, or something, to know everything, but be unaware that he actually knows it."

The unawareness you describe, is knowledge they don't know hence negating their all knowingness.

Prove it, oh he who thinks axioms are real.

Try again.

After you.

Edit to add: the computer's inability to supersede its programming and access its contents is an example of knowledge that it does not know. Plus, bad example because the "all knowledge" its set to collect would necessarily include the fact that it itself contains all knowledge - therefore, it KNOWS it knows everything - or else it hasn't COLLECTED all knowledge.

Yet, if it is unable to access the fact that it has all knowledge, my point still stands. You, on the other hand, are stuck with declaring you are right, and then proclaiming that anyone who doesn't recognize that fact, is stupid, all without providing any evidence beyond your belief in the existence of axioms.

Perhaps you should read some science fiction, you might discover how limited your understanding of thought is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I argue that the evidence is not conclusive, or even suggestive since it is a "choice" what you consider it evidence OF, since there remains other, also unproven or not disproven, explanations.

You argue from ignorance then.