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

[Foxfyre]

Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.

Don't hold your breath.

It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:

1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.

Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​

​

I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.

2. The origin of logic?

3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).


Number 3 is the most daunting.

I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.

I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!

I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.

The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.

 

[Taz]

God made himself, so why couldn't he make us?

 

[Dot Com]

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you ever look up this stuff before you swallow it whole and post it? Other than Jesus and Dionysus none of these figures are reported to have a mortal mother. All but Jesus had a father who begat them in the usual way, so the virgin story doesn't hold up except in the case of Jesus. There are other reports of virgin births in ancient mythology but they don't include the non-Jesus figures on your list. Whoever put together this ridiculous comparison absolutely didn't do their homework and shame on you for furthering this nonsense that you will find posted for the gullible on anti-Christian, anti-religion websites, but never in the credible accounts of ancient mythology.

 

[Justin Davis]

Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.

Don't hold your breath.

It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:

1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.

Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​

​

I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.

2. The origin of logic?

3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).


Number 3 is the most daunting.

I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.

I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!

I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.

The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.

?

 

[Justin Davis]

Besides, I already described a computer system that can collect all knowledge in the universe, yet not be aware of that knowledge.

This suggests that God would choose to not be aware of something?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.

Don't hold your breath.

It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:

1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.

Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​

​

I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.

2. The origin of logic?

3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).


Number 3 is the most daunting.

I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.

I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!

I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.

The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.

?

LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.

My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.

My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.

Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.

 

[Justin Davis]

Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.

Don't hold your breath.

It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:

1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.

Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​

​

I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.

2. The origin of logic?

3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).


Number 3 is the most daunting.

I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.

I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!

I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.

The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.

?

LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.

My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.

My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.

Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.

Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me. It seemed you agreed with it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe that will prompt you to think about it a bit more.

I have spent the last 35 years thinking about it, and see no reason your confusion should prompt more thought on my part.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and that is not what the xchristians in this thread have collectively conspired to accomplish ?

Do you have actual examples I should consider, or should I just laugh?

the only paradox would be free/will in a pre deterministic Universe ...

Only if you think you know what you are talking about, which is clearly negated by what you just said.

no but then the christian bible does negate free/will by their central precept that "No one comes to the Father except through me".

.

Another example of how stupid people who don't actually read can be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rather than be oblique, I'll explain. I didn't say scientists don't understand philosophy - all of the best ones understand it implicitly. I said they aren't necessarily skilled in philosophy, and pointed out that, when that is the case, it is to their detriment. Philosophy is what distinguishes science from engineering and craft. Real science is about finding new understanding and new truth, and to do that effectively requires mastery of the tools we use to derive truth - and that is ultimate domain of philosophy.

Philosophy does not lead us to truth, it leads us to think we can explain the universe on our terms. It is a tool for the arrogant and the weak minded, not for people that really want to learn about the universe.

Saying science is about understanding the universe is like saying that building high speed trains will save energy, it is a completely unrealistic understanding of what science is.

Science is about gathering data, and discerning the order behind that data, the philosophy of science is to explain and predict, not to understand. This is why many believers are opposed to science, because it is not in any way concerned with the why, all it is focused on is the how. Ultimately, unless we can expand beyond the physical limitations imposed on us by biology, we will never understand how because the ability to understand ourselves completely is beyond the scope of our abilities.

Scientists actually understand this, philosophers do not. This is why, ultimately, philosophy is bullshit, it doesn't recognize that the tools it is using are limited by the people who use them. Philosophers are arrogant assholes who think they can do things that re impossible for normal human beings because they are taught that the universe is subject to their understanding. In reality, the universe doesn't give a shit about humans and what they think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This suggests that God would choose to not be aware of something?

Not really. First you have to define omniscience in such a way that God would be aware of your choices before you make them. Frankly, given what the Bible says about predestination, that will be hard to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.

Don't hold your breath.

It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:

1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.

Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​

​

I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.

2. The origin of logic?

3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).


Number 3 is the most daunting.

I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.

I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!

I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.

The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.

?

LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.

My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.

My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.

Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.

Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me. It seemed you agreed with it.

I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable. If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him. But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us. Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.

 

[sealybobo]

Do you ever look up this stuff before you swallow it whole and post it? Other than Jesus and Dionysus none of these figures are reported to have a mortal mother. All but Jesus had a father who begat them in the usual way, so the virgin story doesn't hold up except in the case of Jesus. There are other reports of virgin births in ancient mythology but they don't include the non-Jesus figures on your list. Whoever put together this ridiculous comparison absolutely didn't do their homework and shame on you for furthering this nonsense that you will find posted for the gullible on anti-Christian, anti-religion websites, but never in the credible accounts of ancient mythology.

Oh that makes the whole Jesus myth more believable. NOT!

Oh excuse us! Apparently Mary was the only mortal woman hot enough for god to fuck.

 

[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.

I was watching a show the other day on the Pharoah's and they had such details when it came to this time in history. Actual historical record or who the Pharoah's were, what life was like back then, drawings or writings, etc.

My point is, when you see how they lived back 7000 years ago, it doesn't seem that long ago. They had laws, kings, libraries, schools, societies, doctors, etc. Doesn't seem that much different than now.

Now think about stories like Noah living 350 years or Jonah living in the belly of a fish for 3 days and living and all the other stupid stories in Christianity. None of it jives with reality or history. So clearly all made up.

 

[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.

Yes.

People who think God is a myth must also believe if you stare at a pile of dirt long enough it will turn into a clam.

Then if you stare at that clam long enough it will turn into a gorilla.

All because of their gods "time and chance."

Forgive our hyper-bewilderment.

Why would someone today, who has never seen a god themself, who has all the facts, still believe one exists just because his corrupt church and ignorant ancestors told him there is one?

I assume you are very gullible if you believe an unbelievable story just because everyone else you know believes it. No wonder they call you their flock you sheep.

Why there is no god

 

[sealybobo]

Another intellectually challenged atheist demanding physical proof of a spiritual existence. Why bother, he's never gonna understand it anyway (not that he really wants to). You're either smart enough to be able to think outside the box or you're not, and NP obviously isn't.

Of course we want to you fucking idiot!

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshiping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

 

[turzovka]

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.

Yes.

People who think God is a myth must also believe if you stare at a pile of dirt long enough it will turn into a clam.

Then if you stare at that clam long enough it will turn into a gorilla.

All because of their gods "time and chance."

Forgive our hyper-bewilderment.

Why would someone today, who has never seen a god themself, who has all the facts, still believe one exists just because his corrupt church and ignorant ancestors told him there is one?

I assume you are very gullible if you believe an unbelievable story just because everyone else you know believes it. No wonder they call you their flock you sheep.

Why there is no god

So given there is no God then we can assume your earlier ancestors were apes? And if we trace your family tree back further your earlier grandparents were what?.... sloths?... mice? So for your theory to hold any veracity we continue our tracing the family tree and before that your ancestors were what?... trout?... clams?... and before that?.... houseflies? So you agree then. If we stare at a fly it will one day become a trapeze artist. This is what you believe for all intents and purposes. And of course, without any intelligent designer, without any intelligence at all, without God of course.

No, we have never seen God, but God has revealed Himself untold thousands of times to the human race through divine manifestations. Go start with this list of weeping statues. Question: How many have to be authentic for no explanation but divine intervention to be the reasonable, logical and only answer? Don't play a child's game by finding a hoax and then excitedly proclaiming "this means they are all hoaxes!"

Visions of Jesus Christ.com - Weeping statues and Icons

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was watching a show the other day on the Pharoah's and they had such details when it came to this time in history. Actual historical record or who the Pharoah's were, what life was like back then, drawings or writings, etc.

My point is, when you see how they lived back 7000 years ago, it doesn't seem that long ago. They had laws, kings, libraries, schools, societies, doctors, etc. Doesn't seem that much different than now.

Now think about stories like Noah living 350 years or Jonah living in the belly of a fish for 3 days and living and all the other stupid stories in Christianity. None of it jives with reality or history. So clearly all made up.

They have actual historical records of Pharaoh's being descended from gods, yet you want to quibble about the Bible saying Noah lived 350 years, even thogh the Bible doesn't make that claim?

Wow.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course we want to you fucking idiot!

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshiping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

Damn, that post must have drove the average IQ of the universe down a full point the moment you typed it.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but philosophy has spent thousands of years developing logical proofs that show god exists, and have even used logic to show what he must be like. Despite your massive ignorance, the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and perfect god you spend so much time railing against is not a product of Christianity, he is a product of logic.

If only they taught basic history in school.