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

[Justin Davis]

No. One's ignorance ≠ I don't have a point. "Just like the universe is [not] run by our thoughts." The truth is what it is.

Actually, I provided you scriptural proof of this, but you dismissed it out of hand on the basis of the well-known fact that YHWH's name carries connotations of action and/or unknown connotations in addition to those that go to being due to the ritualistic tradition of the transcription of His name clouding its etymology. But what you're not aware of is that the bulk of Prophetic and Apostolic authority asserts His name in terms of being and the universal ramifications thereof, including the action of sustaining the universe via His very own being as the universal Logos or first principle of identity.

I'm not going to research it all over again now. I don't have my "white book" with me. It's loaned out. But I'll provide you a list of those scriptural references after Sunday when I see the brother who has it. I'll ask him to bring it and I'll make copy of the pertinent pages.

In the meantime contemplate on these: John 1:1-4, Acts 17:28, Colossians 1:15-20, Romans 1:18-23 (again) and the post in the above again.

The truth is you said something that is not true.

You clearly wrong about the excluded middle thing. What is not true about this idea of YHWH?

 

[Justin Davis]

It's just that the conversation has shifted a little bit into the Bible because of the kind of question that's being addressed, free will. For me that's just not something you can understand from just the things that the thoughts of origin give you. All I'm saying is that there's never any reason to put alimit on what God can do or how God can make it logically possible for Him to know all and for there to be free will at the same time. I don't get the logic that tries to say that logic doesn't work while trying to use the very same logic, though wrongfully ignoring the perfectly logical concept of infiniteness, to say that logic doesn't let both fully exist. Huh? The only thing that logically works is that both fully exist without conflict, and that's what the Bible says. I don't get the attack on organic logic from Christians.

Actually, philosophy has pretty much settled into the position that free will does not exist.

I can't tell from this.

 

[Justin Davis]

What I'm saying is that we exist. The atheist accepts that the universe exists. Then he says God doesn't exist. Who doesn't exist? God doesn't exist. So he has an idea of God in his mind because he realizes that the origin of his existence could be God. Since that's true. It's not logical to say that something that is obviously possible can't be. His claim that God does not exist is not rational. It's contradictory. The knowledge that God could be is justifiable knowledge. The claim that God cannot be after the atheist necessarily admits that He could be is not logically justifiable. It's not justifiable knowledge either. This has already been covered on this thread.

It's because the only "exist" which they can comprehend is physical. If something does not have physical existence, it doesn't exist. If you cannot prove God physically exists, then God does not exist to the Atheist. They are illiterate of spiritual existence.

Now, in the Atheist's defense, if I did not believe in or comprehend spiritual nature, and the only "exist" is physically, I wouldn't believe God could exist either. You and I comprehend another type of "exist" which is spiritual. It's not physical existence, there is no physical proof, and that is where we meet with disagreement with the Atheist view.

A rainbow doesn't exist to a blind person. We can tell them all about rainbows, how beautiful they are, all the colors... means nothing to a blind person, they don't know of colors or beauty, they can't see. Their viewpoint (pardon the pun) is justified, whether it is correct or not.

It's not justified in any standard sense. It's just silly.

 

[Justin Davis]

What you're saying makes sense, except the suggestion that I'm being dogmatic. My thinking is very much like M.D.R.'s, though now I'm not sure I totally get him because I don't agree with something he just said about God voluntarily limiting Himself. That doesn't work in my mind for reasons I learned the hard way. Also, it seems to me he's contradicting himself but maybe he means something else. I don't know now. What I don't get at all is the idea I'm keep getting from you and Foxfyre that there's something dogmatically closed minded about our view. Our view is totally open to any possibility for God to do whatever He pleases without any limits at all. The only people putting limits on him are you guys.

I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it.

The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.

There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.

I don't see where you're getting this from him at all. In fact his take on things shows me a mind tahts wide open. To be honest with you, I'm put off by you. I mostly agree with M.D.R. so that puts me in the same boat. The only thing I think I disagree with him on is his idea that God could choose to limit his powers in anyway except in the sense of what Jesus did for us. I know from deep contemplation on the word and on the various issues that you cannot compromise on that without conceding all. From where I'm standing your mind is closed. I don't see how someone who is taking about the objective ideas of the mind about God that are affirmed in the Bible would be closed minded. I clearly see that there's no excuse for you to not see your error about something as simple as the conceptual set logic of simultaneity., Since when was that a problem for organic logic or science? That's just silly. You're too smart to not know that so something very weird is going there. Why would someone lie about something like that? But not just that, only someone who is not thinking but just regurgitating by rote could believe that there’s anything about the basic ideas of God from organic logic would stop us from seeing the universe as it is or limit God. That's just silly. I stopped posting yesterday to get a grip on intuitionistic logic so I could follow along and spent almost an hour reading what you guys said about it this morning. It’s clear as a bell that M.D.R. is way ahead you on that. You're not making any sense at all.

 

[Justin Davis]

What you're saying makes sense, except the suggestion that I'm being dogmatic. My thinking is very much like M.D.R.'s, though now I'm not sure I totally get him because I don't agree with something he just said about God voluntarily limiting Himself. That doesn't work in my mind for reasons I learned the hard way. Also, it seems to me he's contradicting himself but maybe he means something else. I don't know now. What I don't get at all is the idea I'm keep getting from you and Foxfyre that there's something dogmatically closed minded about our view. Our view is totally open to any possibility for God to do whatever He pleases without any limits at all. The only people putting limits on him are you guys.

I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it.

The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.

There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.

That is a flat out lie! You have been shown to wrong about serious matters over and over again, including matters pertaining to that lie.

You do not grasp what philosophy is and its necessities. You confounded the law of the excluded middle. You don't grasp the infiniteness of the single predication of the discrete law of identity.

According to your logic the doctrine of the Trinity violates the principle of identity via the law of the excluded middle. According to you the fundamental rational forms and logical categories of humanity's moral, rational and dimensional apprehensions are not universally grounded in God throughout existence.

Stop presses!

Somebody rouse the Prophets, the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers; Augustine, Anselm, Ockham, Arminius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Edwards, Wesley, Whitehead, Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Henry . . . from their slumber: QW has something profoundly new to tells us. It's never been asserted before and we note that he has not provided a shred of scriptural evidence, but we're all ears.

God forbid we be accused of being dogmatic, closed-minded or of imposing limitations on God (with our totally open-ended, conceivably highest standard of attribution, no less) or imposing foreign ideas on scripture if we don't all bow down to your insinuations and bald declarations pulled out of thin air.

You don't even understand the necessary relationship between philosophy and science. dblack understands that and so does Justin. You don't really understand the fundamentals of human logic either because you can't keep the ontological distinction between the principle of identity as organically hard-wired, which you've conceded, and the principle of identity as a theological universal contingent on God, which I have never asserted as anything but a demonstrable truth in terms of the rules of justification of classical logic and in terms of scriptural affirmation.

But in any event, the Bible incontrovertibly declares Jesus Christ to be the universal Logos!

Are you declaring that not to be so, reader of Greek?

What logical proof have you provided that falsifies the major premise in the transcendental argument?

*crickets chirping*

What scripture have you provided to support your insinuations that scripture does not assert absolute omniscience, which quite obviously would necessitate God being the universal Principle of Identity whether he provides that our apprehensions be synchronized with the rest of the cosmological order or not. But then I have already provided scripture for all of these things, and will provide more.

And you insinuated something that's false about the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic, something totally unremarkable, something already acknowledge by all in terms of ultimacy.

The notion that absolute divine omniscience and free will do not coexist has never been asserted by biblical orthodoxy. The historical origins of the notion that this is not so are philosophically extra-biblical, dating mostly back to the Renaissance, centuries after the testimony of the Apostles.

What do any of these objectively, historically or scripturally verifiable assertions and your counter assertions have to do the notion I have got God all figured out?

Let me see if I've got this right. It's never occurred to me that your anthropomorphically, scripturally unsupported beliefs about certain things means that you have God all figured out.

It's never occurred to me to accuse Foxfyre of thinking she has God all figured out.

Given the fact that you, QW, have taken the opposite position on these various matters making claims that are no less absolute to the contrary, why would it be any less reasonable for me to accuse you of thinking that you have God all figured out?

That wouldn't be reasonable, would it?

Your allegation is obviously stupid, false and despicable. In fact, you're accusing me of blasphemy.

M.D.R. I don't blame you for being annoyed. I'm annoyed too because I agree with what you're saying. So I guess I'm closed minded too. I just read through yesterdays posts. This is ridiculous. QW is saying the silliest things I've ever heard from someone who's supposed to smart about this stuff. If he is an expert on logic and can't even see the obvious about set logic something's really wrong and I can see that what he keeps saying about intuitionistic logic is incoherent. In truth I don't really know what he's saying because he never really says anything intelligible. It amounts to your wrong because some other form of logic lets you see what? Intuitionistic logic doesn't change anything we've talked about and it doesn't give anyone grounds to reject what we're talking about. Yeah, I see who's closed minded around here. But I do have to ask you. I don't think you can compromise on omniscience. With all due respect, you seem to be contradicting yourself. I so confused.

 

[Justin Davis]

In other words, all I have done is show you your errors.

My errors?

How can constructive logic falsify a metaphysical proposition?

How would that work in constructive logic?

If you correctly understood what I'm asserting, then your proposition would have to be that the divine Logos (the ultimate ground of the universal Principle of Identity), namely, Jesus Christ, does not assure that the rational forms and logical categories of human apprehension are synchronized with the material properties and mechanisms of the cosmological order.

What precisely is the direct evidence for the inhabitable proof that would allow your proposition to be assigned a truth value, let alone overthrow the fact that the counter proposition cannot be falsified under the rules of justification of either classical logic or constructive logic?

On the other hand, what precisely did you fail to understand about the fact that your proposition under the rules of justification of classical logic and standard propositional logic (first order predicate logic) is false?

Bump!

 

[Justin Davis]

Atheists do not believe in God because they see no physical, spiritual, or any type of evidence at all that would support a belief in the supernatural especially as promoted by delusional and irrational people who make absurd assertions that contradict well known and long established facts about reality and have confused faith with obstinate stupidity. Present some evidence. Its not up to the skeptical to believe first before they can see. Its up to the one making the claim to provide convincing evidence that can be seen or even just perceived before belief is even possible.

You have failed miserably.

You make ridiculous claims that people have always worshiped something greater than themselves and even call it God and when I show that such is not the case, and in fact what they worshiped is not God, you act as if that was irrelevant, claim to never have said any such thing and meant something else, start all that you fucking idiot talk, and then go on to clarify your position by saying the exact same thing you said in the first place.

Does Alzheimer's run in your family?

You know, hobbie... you seem to be above the average intellect of most of the loonies here, I see you make some pretty compelling points in other threads and admire your debating abilities... So why in the hell is it that you want to resort to acting like a pissy-pants 7-year-old?

You say "present some evidence" ...okay... I talk to God daily and he blesses me all the time. Now, you will not accept my evidence because it's not viewed as evidence to you. We have the testimony of billions of people who claim to have received blessings and even miracles from God... again, you refute this as evidence. Why? Because you do not believe God exists. It doesn't change the evidence or render it any less valid, it's simply your perspective and what you are willing to accept as "evidence" with regard to God.

Now you can sit here and reel off one lie after another about what you think I've said, and I can spend all day correcting you on that and setting the record straight, but what is the point? You have proven that you want to deliberately misconstrue things I've said and pretend I've said something absurd, so that you can strut around acting like a genius. Honestly, I just don't have time for your nonsense. We can either have an honest discussion about the topic or we can't, and at this point, we're not having that honest discussion.

You obviously either don't know what constitutes evidence, or you know and refuse to accept it.

And you obviously don't know what the definition of evidence is.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No, attempting to refute the first premise of the tag argument does not prove it to be true.

That is baseless. You have not proven it, only asserted it. That's your problem.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself? We both know your earlier argument failed.

 

[hobelim]

You know, hobbie... you seem to be above the average intellect of most of the loonies here, I see you make some pretty compelling points in other threads and admire your debating abilities... So why in the hell is it that you want to resort to acting like a pissy-pants 7-year-old?

You say "present some evidence" ...okay... I talk to God daily and he blesses me all the time. Now, you will not accept my evidence because it's not viewed as evidence to you. We have the testimony of billions of people who claim to have received blessings and even miracles from God... again, you refute this as evidence. Why? Because you do not believe God exists. It doesn't change the evidence or render it any less valid, it's simply your perspective and what you are willing to accept as "evidence" with regard to God.

I'm sorry, you have just made great errors in your speculations. Is that too hard for you to even consider?

Your professed belief that you talk to God on a daily basis and have received many blessings in your life is indistinguishable from mental illness unless you can offer something more than your professed belief as evidence that what you believe that you are communicating with actually exists.

Many people who do not appeal to supernatural beings mull things over in their own minds and have received many blessings in life.

Is that evidence that God does not exist? Of course not.

I do not refute your claim of evidence because I do not believe in God, I do believe in God, I refute your claim because it is not evidence of anything. It is no more evidence of God or any spiritual reality other than the multitude of delusions possible in an unrestrained imagination.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What you're saying makes sense, except the suggestion that I'm being dogmatic. My thinking is very much like M.D.R.'s, though now I'm not sure I totally get him because I don't agree with something he just said about God voluntarily limiting Himself. That doesn't work in my mind for reasons I learned the hard way. Also, it seems to me he's contradicting himself but maybe he means something else. I don't know now. What I don't get at all is the idea I'm keep getting from you and Foxfyre that there's something dogmatically closed minded about our view. Our view is totally open to any possibility for God to do whatever He pleases without any limits at all. The only people putting limits on him are you guys.

I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it.

The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.

There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.

That is a flat out lie! You have been shown to wrong about serious matters over and over again, including matters pertaining to that lie.

You do not grasp what philosophy is and its necessities. You confounded the law of the excluded middle. You don't grasp the infiniteness of the single predication of the discrete law of identity.

According to your logic the doctrine of the Trinity violates the principle of identity via the law of the excluded middle. According to you the fundamental rational forms and logical categories of humanity's moral, rational and dimensional apprehensions are not universally grounded in God throughout existence.

Stop presses!

Somebody rouse the Prophets, the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers; Augustine, Anselm, Ockham, Arminius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Edwards, Wesley, Whitehead, Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Henry . . . from their slumber: QW has something profoundly new to tells us. It's never been asserted before and we note that he has not provided a shred of scriptural evidence, but we're all ears.

God forbid we be accused of being dogmatic, closed-minded or of imposing limitations on God (with our totally open-ended, conceivably highest standard of attribution, no less) or imposing foreign ideas on scripture if we don't all bow down to your insinuations and bald declarations pulled out of thin air.

You don't even understand the necessary relationship between philosophy and science. dblack understands that and so does Justin. You don't really understand the fundamentals of human logic either because you can't keep the ontological distinction between the principle of identity as organically hard-wired, which you've conceded, and the principle of identity as a theological universal contingent on God, which I have never asserted as anything but a demonstrable truth in terms of the rules of justification of classical logic and in terms of scriptural affirmation.

But in any event, the Bible incontrovertibly declares Jesus Christ to be the universal Logos!

Are you declaring that not to be so, reader of Greek?

What logical proof have you provided that falsifies the major premise in the transcendental argument?

*crickets chirping*

What scripture have you provided to support your insinuations that scripture does not assert absolute omniscience, which quite obviously would necessitate God being the universal Principle of Identity whether he provides that our apprehensions be synchronized with the rest of the cosmological order or not. But then I have already provided scripture for all of these things, and will provide more.

And you insinuated something that's false about the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic, something totally unremarkable, something already acknowledge by all in terms of ultimacy.

The notion that absolute divine omniscience and free will do not coexist has never been asserted by biblical orthodoxy. The historical origins of the notion that this is not so are philosophically extra-biblical, dating mostly back to the Renaissance, centuries after the testimony of the Apostles.

What do any of these objectively, historically or scripturally verifiable assertions and your counter assertions have to do the notion I have got God all figured out?

Let me see if I've got this right. It's never occurred to me that your anthropomorphically, scripturally unsupported beliefs about certain things means that you have God all figured out.

It's never occurred to me to accuse Foxfyre of thinking she has God all figured out.

Given the fact that you, QW, have taken the opposite position on these various matters making claims that are no less absolute to the contrary, why would it be any less reasonable for me to accuse you of thinking that you have God all figured out?

That wouldn't be reasonable, would it?

Your allegation is obviously stupid, false and despicable. In fact, you're accusing me of blasphemy.

M.D.R. I don't blame you for being annoyed. I'm annoyed too because I agree with what you're saying. So I guess I'm closed minded too. I just read through yesterdays posts. This is ridiculous. QW is saying the silliest things I've ever heard from someone who's supposed to smart about this stuff. If he is an expert on logic and can't even see the obvious about set logic something's really wrong and I can see that what he keeps saying about intuitionistic logic is incoherent. In truth I don't really know what he's saying because he never really says anything intelligible. It amounts to your wrong because some other form of logic lets you see what? Intuitionistic logic doesn't change anything we've talked about and it doesn't give anyone grounds to reject what we're talking about. Yeah, I see who's closed minded around here. But I do have to ask you. I don't think you can compromise on omniscience. With all due respect, you seem to be contradicting yourself. I so confused.

Actually, I'm glad you raised the point. Yes. In an earlier post I didn't state the matter very well at all. I was actually thinking something else and confused it. You are right to call me out on that.

No. You can't compromise on God's omniscience without creating a legion of problems.

C.S. Lewis puts it well, better than me:

But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call today." All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday, He simply sees you doing them: because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow, He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.​

But then comes the criticism:

1. God timelessly knows choice "C" that a human would claim to "make freely".
2. If C is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that C.
3. If it is now-necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination.
4. If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities)
5. Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely.

But if, as anyone can see, except for the open-minded, it is perfectly rational in expressional set logic under that terms of organic logic for any given A can be two or more things unto infinity without conflict, what prevents God from producing any given dimensional state of being wherein omniscience and free will coexist without conflict?

Ockham's razor. A legion of problems vs. no problems.

 

[G.T.]

No, attempting to refute the first premise of the tag argument does not prove it to be true.

That is baseless. You have not proven it, only asserted it. That's your problem.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself? We both know your earlier argument failed.

No, we both know that refuting that we need a transcendental basis for our reason, by using reason, does not therefore justify said transcendental basis. That is not supported.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No, attempting to refute the first premise of the tag argument does not prove it to be true.

That is baseless. You have not proven it, only asserted it. That's your problem.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself? We both know your earlier argument failed.

No, we both know that refuting that we need a transcendental basis for our reason, by using reason, does not therefore justify said transcendental basis. That is not supported.

So you're saying that you can reason that you're not justifying a transcendental ground without there necessarily being an absolute transcendental ground? You stated that as an absolute fact of reality. How is it that you know something that nobody else knows or can know without presupposing that you transcend all of reality, you know, just to make sure? This is very curious. It's eerie even.

That was you who earlier on this thread insisted that you know that you don't know everything there is to know like a person who would necessarily be supremely transcendent, wasn't it?

Now you seem to be claiming to be that supremely transcendent person. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're God. That's the stuff of the booby hatch. But you won't be alone. There's lots of folks on this thread who think they're God too . . . well, except for those living in alternate worlds of logic. Now these guys believe they might be God or they might not be God. They're waiting to be proved or disproved as one or the other. Now that's a whole other personality disorder.

As for myself I know that I think . . . so apparently I am. Now, I remember a time when I was, and I anticipate . . . give me a moment here . . . when I will be . . . right now! Oh, never mind. Now when I try to think that I'm doing this all on my own, I realize that I'm not supremely transcendent. So that's not a rational option. So that either means that God is or maybe I just don't know. But if I know that I don' know how do I know that? Well, it's settled. I'm off to the booby hatch too. . . .

 

[Justin Davis]

No, attempting to refute the first premise of the tag argument does not prove it to be true.

That is baseless. You have not proven it, only asserted it. That's your problem.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself? We both know your earlier argument failed.

No, we both know that refuting that we need a transcendental basis for our reason, by using reason, does not therefore justify said transcendental basis. That is not supported.

So you're saying that you can reason that you're not justifying a transcendental ground without there necessarily being an absolute transcendental ground? You stated that as an absolute fact of reality. How is it that you know something that nobody else knows or can know without presupposing that they transcend all of reality, you know, just to make sure? This is very curious. It's eerie even.

That was you who earlier on this thread insisted that you know that you don't know everything there is to know like a person who would necessarily be supremely transcendent, wasn't it?

Now you seem to be claiming to be that supremely transcendent person. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're God. That's the stuff of the booby hatch. But you won't be alone. There's lots of folks on this thread who think they're God too . . . well, except for those living in alternate worlds of logic. Now these guys believe they might be God or they might not be God. They're waiting to be proved or disproved as one or the other. Now that's a whole other personality disorder.

As for myself I know that I think . . . so apparently I am. Now, I remember a time when I was, and I anticipate . . . give me a moment here . . . when I will be . . . right now! Oh, never mind. Now when I try to think that I'm doing this all on my own, I realize that I'm not supremely transcendent. So that's not a rational option. So that either means that God is or maybe I just don't know. But if I know that I don' know how do I know that? Well, it's settled. I'm off to the booby hatch too. . . .

 

[Justin Davis]

There is a growing body of evidence that points to religious speculations have a biological base. If it is found, it doesn't prove religious beliefs are false, nor does it prove there is no God and that concept is a delusion, either. Just because somebody doesn't believe in creationism doesn't mean they are obligated to believe in evolution. These are beliefs, not empirical evidence. Both are similar in general concept; one isn't 'superior' to the other, nor are those who believe in the first 'dumber' than those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, one contributes greatly to sociological and cultural strengths and progress over time, while the other doesn't contribute anything to those. As far as any evidence goes, it's not going to harm children if both intelligent design and evolution were taught in schools, any more than it ever did in the past, as long as they come to understand both are not proven but are just hypotheses.

For many of us, knowledge/assurance of God is based on empirical evidence and is something quite different from pure faith. Where the faith comes in is trusting God beyond what we have experienced. But you are quite right that much of the scholarly concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God are pure hypothesis and to choose to accept them is also of necessity faith based.

Because of our limited mortal existence, Evolution is not something that is empirically experienced, so most of us accept on faith that the scientific information about it that is available to us is trustworthy. We trust it based on our own ability to reason and understand logic, but it is faith based nonetheless.

While I do not promote intelligent design being taught as science, I agree that it does not harm students in the least to be honestly informed that many, including esteemed scientists, do see an order in the universe that logically goes beyond mere chance or accident and therefore there is justification for some sort of intelligent design in the process. And even though science currently has no means or process to investigate that, and the students should know that too, to allow the mind to embrace and consider it all is truly liberating and expands all possibilities to be explored.

Do you know of any book I might read that doesn't have "concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God.? Especially the demand part. That demand part throws me.

 

[Boss]

You know, hobbie... you seem to be above the average intellect of most of the loonies here, I see you make some pretty compelling points in other threads and admire your debating abilities... So why in the hell is it that you want to resort to acting like a pissy-pants 7-year-old?

You say "present some evidence" ...okay... I talk to God daily and he blesses me all the time. Now, you will not accept my evidence because it's not viewed as evidence to you. We have the testimony of billions of people who claim to have received blessings and even miracles from God... again, you refute this as evidence. Why? Because you do not believe God exists. It doesn't change the evidence or render it any less valid, it's simply your perspective and what you are willing to accept as "evidence" with regard to God.

I'm sorry, you have just made great errors in your speculations. Is that too hard for you to even consider?

Your professed belief that you talk to God on a daily basis and have received many blessings in your life is indistinguishable from mental illness unless you can offer something more than your professed belief as evidence that what you believe that you are communicating with actually exists.

Many people who do not appeal to supernatural beings mull things over in their own minds and have received many blessings in life.

Is that evidence that God does not exist? Of course not.

I do not refute your claim of evidence because I do not believe in God, I do believe in God, I refute your claim because it is not evidence of anything. It is no more evidence of God or any spiritual reality other than the multitude of delusions possible in an unrestrained imagination.

Again, you are refuting my evidence. Doesn't matter why you claim to be refuting it. If evidence were valued the same by everyone, you wouldn't be refuting my evidence. Now, I presented you my evidence because you demanded it, knowing that you were not going to accept it and telling you that beforehand. As soon as I presented it, you accuse me of being mentally ill unless I can give you more evidence. So if I give you more evidence, does it make me "insane" unless I give you even more? Is that how this works?

Okay, you want more evidence? My life has been spared 3 times by the grace of God. By all logic and reason, I should have died. Again, you will refute my evidence because you don't believe it is evidence. I don't care if you accept my evidence or even value it as evidence. It is evidence to me and that is all that matters. My point has been to demonstrate to your stupid ass that "evidence" means different things to different people and it largely depends on individual perspective. I think my point is proven.

 

[G.T.]

No, attempting to refute the first premise of the tag argument does not prove it to be true.

That is baseless. You have not proven it, only asserted it. That's your problem.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself? We both know your earlier argument failed.

No, we both know that refuting that we need a transcendental basis for our reason, by using reason, does not therefore justify said transcendental basis. That is not supported.

So you're saying that you can reason that you're not justifying a transcendental ground without there necessarily being an absolute transcendental ground? You stated that as an absolute fact of reality. How is it that you know something that nobody else knows or can know without presupposing that you transcend all of reality, you know, just to make sure? This is very curious. It's eerie even.

That was you who earlier on this thread insisted that you know that you don't know everything there is to know like a person who would necessarily be supremely transcendent, wasn't it?

Now you seem to be claiming to be that supremely transcendent person. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're God. That's the stuff of the booby hatch. But you won't be alone. There's lots of folks on this thread who think they're God too . . . well, except for those living in alternate worlds of logic. Now these guys believe they might be God or they might not be God. They're waiting to be proved or disproved as one or the other. Now that's a whole other personality disorder.

As for myself I know that I think . . . so apparently I am. Now, I remember a time when I was, and I anticipate . . . give me a moment here . . . when I will be . . . right now! Oh, never mind. Now when I try to think that I'm doing this all on my own, I realize that I'm not supremely transcendent. So that's not a rational option. So that either means that God is or maybe I just don't know. But if I know that I don' know how do I know that? Well, it's settled. I'm off to the booby hatch too. . . .

It's not my fault you misunderstand.

I can reason that god doesnt exist without presupposing god by doing so.

Very easily.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now this is philosophical bullshit, akin to QW's bullshit about constructive logic wherein truth values can only be assigned to propositions supported by direct evidence for inhabitable proofs while all propositions in general are held to be unproved until falsified by evidence or deduced contradictions.

"Lies can be true." "Truths can be lies."

Hogwash!

There are no such assignments unless the proposition assigned a truth value is mistakenly perceived to be supported by direct evidence for an inhabitable proof, in which case the error would be due to the abuse or misuse of the principle of identity at some level or another, like QWs' confusion that science is not premised on philosophical apriorities as if it floats in midair.

Just because you dislike the idea that premises need to be backed up with actual facts does not mean the rest of the world is stuck in the past.

 

[hobelim]

Again, you are refuting my evidence. Doesn't matter why you claim to be refuting it. If evidence were valued the same by everyone, you wouldn't be refuting my evidence. Now, I presented you my evidence because you demanded it, knowing that you were not going to accept it and telling you that beforehand. As soon as I presented it, you accuse me of being mentally ill unless I can give you more evidence. So if I give you more evidence, does it make me "insane" unless I give you even more? Is that how this works?

Okay, you want more evidence? My life has been spared 3 times by the grace of God. By all logic and reason, I should have died. Again, you will refute my evidence because you don't believe it is evidence. I don't care if you accept my evidence or even value it as evidence. It is evidence to me and that is all that matters. My point has been to demonstrate to your stupid ass that "evidence" means different things to different people and it largely depends on individual perspective. I think my point is proven.

Well, you are right, I won't accept your evidence that you didn't die except by the grace of God, because IT IS NOT EVIDENCE.

It is an unsubstantiated assertion.

The good and the bad escape death every day. the good and the bad die every day. How is that evidence of God? how is that evidence of spiritual reality? How is that evidence of anything except that humans are mortal.?

How do you know that you didn't die because you were wearing a lucky tie, or ate cornflakes in the morning, or never walked under a ladder?

Where will the grace of God be in the day that you actually do die?

 

[BreezeWood]

" No one comes to the Father except through me "

.
how could anyone with even a simple understanding of life justify or support a document predicated by the above fallacy attributed without verification as being authentic and base their own or others life's destiny on such an absurd dogma ... M.D. Rawlings.

Edit: and the other biblicists.
.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hogwash!

This is what you wrote:

Which does not claim he did not use sensory data, it just points out he didn't use anything to prove his ideas were correct.

The brain is the seat of our senses. The mind above the brain is what wields the principle of identity, which alerted him to his error. He disregarded that.

That was funny.

Can you provide any evidence that Aristotle ever realized he was wrong, or are you just assuming you can read his mind?

As I explained:

What led Aristotle astray was his extracurricular philosophizing in violation of the recommendations of the principle of identity. Ironically, as you alluded earlier, he got it into his head from the perfections of the Logos (God) . . . that those "heavenly movements" that didn't line up with the perfection of geometric circularity must be miscalculations. He had the information he needed to get it right all along!

In other words, the classical empiricist Aristotle wasn't entirely free of his teacher's influence; however, the bulk of the mathematical calculi based on the sensory data of the unaided eye from an earthly perspective worked. He simply decided to disregard those aspects of the sensory data on the peripheral of his "ideal model" in spite the fact that the principle of identity was telling him there was a problem.​

​

In other words, he didn't use math.

He did see that. He did use math. He went with the bulk of it and disregarded the rest. And it was not a “classical logic axiom” that moved him. It was a creed of Platonic, geometric idealism.

Funny how you are the only person in the universe who thinks Aristotle knew he was wrong.