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

[IlarMeilyr]

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

Prolly not. But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.

It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.

Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.

 

[Justin Davis]

I'm not really interested past that.

I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.

Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.

Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?

The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.

So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?

My mind isn't committed to not accepting.

That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.

I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.

Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.

It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, ACTUALLY exists. The bar is higher than that.

Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.

It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.

You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.

It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.

Like many angry fundamentalists, you become incensed when your specious claims to magical gods are met with a requirement that you support your claims with evidence. That's why you react in typical fashion with lashing out like a petulant child.

Otherwise, your "living in caves" comment is drenched in the irony that escaped the religious zealot. You’re hoping not to address the fact that religious institutions have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. You need only review the actions of those good Christian church folk in Medieval Europe who kept knowledge and enlightenment a crime for 800 years. People are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were under the booth eel of the christian church and that's due in large part because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.

You're an idiot.

 

[Justin Davis]

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

Prolly not. But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.

It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.

Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.

"Prolly not is wrong." Don't let that guy fool ya. His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread. The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

Prolly not. But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.

It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.

Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.

"Prolly not is wrong." Don't let that guy fool ya. His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread. The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.

You put quotes marks where they don't belong. This confuses your meaning.

And I am content that there is no valid form of logical argument that PROVES the existence of God. On the other hand, I am also content that the existence of God is not dependent upon the ability of humans to formulate a clever syllogism and proof.

I see plenty of evidence that argues in favor of the existence of a Creator. I am ok with admitting that this doesn't amount to a logical proof of the existence of a (supernatural) Creator.

 

[Hollie]

Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?

The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.

So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?

My mind isn't committed to not accepting.

That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.

I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.

Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.

It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, ACTUALLY exists. The bar is higher than that.

Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.

It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.

You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.

It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.

Like many angry fundamentalists, you become incensed when your specious claims to magical gods are met with a requirement that you support your claims with evidence. That's why you react in typical fashion with lashing out like a petulant child.

Otherwise, your "living in caves" comment is drenched in the irony that escaped the religious zealot. You’re hoping not to address the fact that religious institutions have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. You need only review the actions of those good Christian church folk in Medieval Europe who kept knowledge and enlightenment a crime for 800 years. People are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were under the booth eel of the christian church and that's due in large part because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.

You're an idiot.

That's certainly easier than admitting you're too befuddled to actually address the salient points.

You angry, self-hating fundies are entirely predictable.

 

[Hollie]

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

Prolly not. But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.

It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.

Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.

"Prolly not is wrong." Don't let that guy fool ya. His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread. The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.

So are the facts and arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, space alien abductions and the zombie apocalypse, at least according to the nutbars who believe in those things. Strange how your claims to magical gods are no more or less absurd than the claims of other nutbars.

Strange, that.

 

[Justin Davis]

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

Prolly not. But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.

It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.

Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.

"Prolly not is wrong." Don't let that guy fool ya. His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread. The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.

You put quotes marks where they don't belong. This confuses your meaning.

And I am content that there is no valid form of logical argument that PROVES the existence of God. On the other hand, I am also content that the existence of God is not dependent upon the ability of humans to formulate a clever syllogism and proof.

I see plenty of evidence that argues in favor of the existence of a Creator. I am ok with admitting that this doesn't amount to a logical proof of the existence of a (supernatural) Creator.

I meant to put them around "Prolly not" only. Actually, you're apparently content to be ignorant about what logical validity, truths, proofs and evidence are because what you just said is objectively and empirically false. Others who are not content to be ignorant have already debunked what you said. You don't know of what you speak.

 

[Hollie]

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

Prolly not. But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.

It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.

Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.

"Prolly not is wrong." Don't let that guy fool ya. His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread. The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.

You put quotes marks where they don't belong. This confuses your meaning.

And I am content that there is no valid form of logical argument that PROVES the existence of God. On the other hand, I am also content that the existence of God is not dependent upon the ability of humans to formulate a clever syllogism and proof.

I see plenty of evidence that argues in favor of the existence of a Creator. I am ok with admitting that this doesn't amount to a logical proof of the existence of a (supernatural) Creator.

I meant to put them around "Prolly not" only. Actually, you're apparently content to be ignorant about what logical validity, truths, proofs and evidence are because what you just said is objectively and empirically false. Others who are not content to be ignorant have already debunked what you said. You don't know of what you speak.

And yet, with all your sweaty, chest heaving tirades, you're unable to offer a single pwoof, twoof or logical validity for any of your gods.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.

Well I don't have any beef with QW, or anyone else for that matter. It's just people expressing their opinions on a forum where opinions are expressed. Some people like to present their opinions as facts and tear down the opinions of others by inferring they are irrelevant. That is a debate tactic around here.

QW and I have not always agreed on things, but that can be said for just about everyone here. It seems to me, he at least makes some attempt to engage in an intellectual conversation, unlike the usual troll brigade. People who just come here to antagonize and insult, offering nothing intellectual to the conversation, are totally not worth my time.

Q.W. is lying. Everything about him is just his subjective opinion. It only looks like he does things differently because he gets things right lots of times more than others but its just by accident just like M.D.R. says. I can see that now. At first I thought the same thing you're saying about him until I started to see his closed mindedness and lies.

Classical logic is the one thing I know very well. I have done in depth studies of it. I have never had any problem understanding M.D.R. about the universality of the principle of identity and Jesus is the ultimate principle of identity. And I could see that Q.W was lying about the things M.D.R. was saying about that too. Some of the other stuff was harder to get but I'm getting it. I had to read and think and research constructive logic to fully get what M.D.R. was saying about other things. Q.W. does not understand constructive logic. He pretends to understand it when he doesn't. The things he is saying or implying cannot be true. They are stupid and irrational. I'm sorry but I have had enough of his crap getting in the way of important things. You should carefully read M's, which is what I'm going to start typing instead because it's easier, on constructive logic because it make so much of the things we are talking about crystal clear, things that we all can see objectively.

The reason I have a problem with Q is because he keeps lying about things. It can't be any other way by this time. I'm sick of it. Anyone with any commonsense at all can see that not only does M accept and understand the conventions of constructive logic he uses them in his explantion of things along with classical logic. Q doesn't really understand the nature of either one these forms of logic and keeps saying that M doesn't accept the conventions of constructive logic. He's a liar. I'm a plumber in my twenties with a G.E.D. and I can see that. But I'm also a person who reads and thinks. I just don't have the formal. education others have because I had to take of things for my dad. I'm not dumb and Q was talking to me condenscendingly. He's the one whose dogmatic and ignorant. Heck, this self-educated plumber knows more than Q about constructive logic. He's a fool and M is way past Q's understanding of things. Rather than nitpicking and arguing about everything with M he needs to shut up, stop lying and learn. The idea of Q teaching M how to think outside the box is a joke. Yeah. I saw that comment from him to M and laughed my ass off. Q is a phony and I got a beef with him because he lies consciously.

My mind isn't committed to not accepting.

That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.

I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.

Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.

It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, ACTUALLY exists. The bar is higher than that.

Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.

It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.

You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.

It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.

Like many angry fundamentalists, you become incensed when your specious claims to magical gods are met with a requirement that you support your claims with evidence. That's why you react in typical fashion with lashing out like a petulant child.

Otherwise, your "living in caves" comment is drenched in the irony that escaped the religious zealot. You’re hoping not to address the fact that religious institutions have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. You need only review the actions of those good Christian church folk in Medieval Europe who kept knowledge and enlightenment a crime for 800 years. People are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were under the booth eel of the christian church and that's due in large part because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.

You're an idiot.

That's certainly easier than admitting you're too befuddled to actually address the salient points.

You angry, self-hating fundies are entirely predictable.

Simmer down, Adorable, before you pop a bra strap.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No, I'm not going to go into a chapel.

Absolutely not.

In fact, I'd be cursing a God even if I knew one ABSOLUTELY existed for even PUTTING HER THERE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Also, what you've surmised is not proof of anything. That's all I'm saying. That other explanations exist and that proof of god is not definitively within current human knowledge means that a rational mind forgoes making conclusions that absolute because it's more honest, reasonable, etc etc to say "I dont know" where you're still lacking proof.

I also understand that you've got different standards for "proof" than I do, apparently. I suppose that's the same for all humans who are theists. That doesnt hurt my feelings.

Okay then, well... may God bless your child and keep her from ever becoming sick like that. I know if it were MY child, whether I hated religions or not, I'd be praying for a miracle. But some people may have different priorities.

Again... IF I COULD PROVE GOD... we would not be having this conversation. You realize this, no? So let's get that off the table first and foremost, before any more discussion happens... If it were possible for me to prove God to you, then we'd not be having a conversation right now. Period.

Now... whether or not someone can "prove God" is academic to what is true. I often use what I call the "Jupiter example" here. Many years ago, before man invented telescopes and studied the stars and planets, did the planet Jupiter actually exist? Of course it did, we just had not "proven" it existed yet. The "truth" was that Jupiter was there, it existed, it was real.... we didn't know it, we couldn't prove it. The fact that we lacked the ability to discover Jupiter had no bearing on the truth, and the same applies to God.

I'm not really interested past that.

I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.

Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.

On rye or wheat?

 

[Hollie]

It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.

Well I don't have any beef with QW, or anyone else for that matter. It's just people expressing their opinions on a forum where opinions are expressed. Some people like to present their opinions as facts and tear down the opinions of others by inferring they are irrelevant. That is a debate tactic around here.

QW and I have not always agreed on things, but that can be said for just about everyone here. It seems to me, he at least makes some attempt to engage in an intellectual conversation, unlike the usual troll brigade. People who just come here to antagonize and insult, offering nothing intellectual to the conversation, are totally not worth my time.

Q.W. is lying. Everything about him is just his subjective opinion. It only looks like he does things differently because he gets things right lots of times more than others but its just by accident just like M.D.R. says. I can see that now. At first I thought the same thing you're saying about him until I started to see his closed mindedness and lies.

Classical logic is the one thing I know very well. I have done in depth studies of it. I have never had any problem understanding M.D.R. about the universality of the principle of identity and Jesus is the ultimate principle of identity. And I could see that Q.W was lying about the things M.D.R. was saying about that too. Some of the other stuff was harder to get but I'm getting it. I had to read and think and research constructive logic to fully get what M.D.R. was saying about other things. Q.W. does not understand constructive logic. He pretends to understand it when he doesn't. The things he is saying or implying cannot be true. They are stupid and irrational. I'm sorry but I have had enough of his crap getting in the way of important things. You should carefully read M's, which is what I'm going to start typing instead because it's easier, on constructive logic because it make so much of the things we are talking about crystal clear, things that we all can see objectively.

The reason I have a problem with Q is because he keeps lying about things. It can't be any other way by this time. I'm sick of it. Anyone with any commonsense at all can see that not only does M accept and understand the conventions of constructive logic he uses them in his explantion of things along with classical logic. Q doesn't really understand the nature of either one these forms of logic and keeps saying that M doesn't accept the conventions of constructive logic. He's a liar. I'm a plumber in my twenties with a G.E.D. and I can see that. But I'm also a person who reads and thinks. I just don't have the formal. education others have because I had to take of things for my dad. I'm not dumb and Q was talking to me condenscendingly. He's the one whose dogmatic and ignorant. Heck, this self-educated plumber knows more than Q about constructive logic. He's a fool and M is way past Q's understanding of things. Rather than nitpicking and arguing about everything with M he needs to shut up, stop lying and learn. The idea of Q teaching M how to think outside the box is a joke. Yeah. I saw that comment from him to M and laughed my ass off. Q is a phony and I got a beef with him because he lies consciously.

It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.

You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.

It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.

Like many angry fundamentalists, you become incensed when your specious claims to magical gods are met with a requirement that you support your claims with evidence. That's why you react in typical fashion with lashing out like a petulant child.

Otherwise, your "living in caves" comment is drenched in the irony that escaped the religious zealot. You’re hoping not to address the fact that religious institutions have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. You need only review the actions of those good Christian church folk in Medieval Europe who kept knowledge and enlightenment a crime for 800 years. People are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were under the booth eel of the christian church and that's due in large part because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.

You're an idiot.

That's certainly easier than admitting you're too befuddled to actually address the salient points.

You angry, self-hating fundies are entirely predictable.

Simmer down, Adorable, before you pop a bra strap.

You were no doubt more entertaining as a slobbering drunk.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
obviously, Admission to the Everlasting is not for everyone nor is it required as a simple passing seems adequate for many.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will. That's my understanding too. There's lots of debate.\ That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless. I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from apparent free will to us with God knowing everything and true free will with God still knowing everything. The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God? That's what I don't like. You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God. That's just not true. I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb. When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him. I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more. But I get his premises and what follows generally. Maybe someone is being condescending. It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys. If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say. I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that. If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me. That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems. Also, the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge. Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right. I get it now more fully. The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time. Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.

There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.

St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.

I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.

Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​

He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.

Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.

And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic. MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do. "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible. But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc. I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of. But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.

Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past. The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up. An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.

It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously. The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.

So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in? The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite? Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible? How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations? Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that arise if God is not completely omniscient? Do you know what they are?

Again Justin, I am not going to fight with anybody about this. The God I know up close and personal will not be limited in any way by me nor will I accept anybody else's pronouncements that he must be this or he must be that or else I (or anybody else) am unscriptural or unChristian or whatever. And I am confident that the God I know up close and personal will allow me to question, to ponder, to speculate, and to use the logic he gave me to draw conclusions and, if I am wrong about anything important, and if I don't forget to pay attention, he will guide me to the truth. If a concept of a free will and a past, present, and future that exists simultaneously is illogical to me, I will at least be honest about that. If I see an omniscient God that allows our choices to change our future, I don't think he holds that against me. I think the Bible supports that concept every bit as much as what you are arguing.

I'm sorry that you and MDR want to make this something contentious and angry instead of an interesting discussion. It won't hurt me--I have already weathered those storms and am pretty immune--but I wish you would consider how that might look or sound to the one who is still questioning and seeking.

I have not been contentious or angry with you at all. You have simply uncharacteristically closed your mind to what I have tried to share with you. I understand what you're saying perfectly. I haven't accused you of anything untoward or misstated what you believe. I have accurately stated that your belief limits absolute omniscience unnecessarily, but you take offense to that, though I politely asked to consider something new. It's in the Bible! You don't think it is, but in truth you don't know what I'm talking about.

I understand that the coexistence of actual free will and absolute omniscience isn't logical to you. I understand that, and, moreover, the construct of timelessness (the eternal now) is not an adequate explanation for free will from your perspective at all. I agree with you too. I absolutely agree with that because I know what your perspective is and what its premised on, and the construct of the eternal now wouldn't resolve the problem from your perspective at all.

I believe in absolute, actual free will and I can absolutely show how it coexists with absolute omniscience without any conflict whatsoever.

Clearly, that would necessarily entail something profoundly new to you.

In the meantime, you're arguing from a premise that is not necessary to presuppose. There exists an alternative paradigm in which the construct of the eternal now is merely the premise. It is this paradigm that you have never recognized, never considered, never thought about it. You don’t know what it is.

I have tried to share it with you after respectfully listening to you and understanding what you believe, but instead of being open to understanding this paradigm, which I assure you solves the problem without all of the new problems your "solution" creates, you just tell me what you believe again and why.

To understand it you have to put a name on your premise and back out of your paradigm and enter into the world of mine, and you cannot understand this new paradigm until you grasp the ramifications of the principle of identity. That's what you're closing your mind to.

 

[BreezeWood]

It's in the Bible!

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

is that the christian / bible or a different one ? - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.

as is the presumption of the threads title.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's in the Bible!

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

is that the christian / bible or a different one ? - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.

as is the presumption of the threads title.

.

What are you talking about? After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?

 

[Hollie]

It's in the Bible!

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

is that the christian / bible or a different one ? - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.

as is the presumption of the threads title.

.

What are you talking about? After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?

Obviously, you're clueless. Your pontificating and bible thumping aside, you have never come close to understanding the divide that exists between your pwoofs of the gods and a logical argument.

 

[Justin Davis]

It's in the Bible!

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

is that the christian / bible or a different one ? - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.

as is the presumption of the threads title.

.

What are you talking about? After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?

Obviously, you're clueless. Your pontificating and bible thumping aside, you have never come close to understanding the divide that exists between your pwoofs of the gods and a logical argument.

That's about an idea that's in the Bible, not a proof of God's existence. Why are you always clueless about what people are talking about? Oh, that's right ...... you're an idiot.

 

[Justin Davis]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

 

[dblack]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

 

[sealybobo]

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

Prolly not. But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.

It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.

Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.

So then the answer is to admit you don't know and keep on looking.

Just remember, we can't prove the things in the bible didn't happen but really it is on you to convince us if you are "spreading the word".

It is you telling us the stories. We just don't believe you. What do we have to prove? That you are fos?

Do you believe god told Joseph Smith about magic underwear? Why aren't you a Mormon? Don't you believe??? What's wrong with you?

Ok, so you understand the Mormon and Muslim religions are man made, right? Then why isn't yours?

Logic says your religion is bullshit too.

And if there were 999 other religions before Christianity, what happened to them? They were all made up too. They eventually disappeared as we evolved and got smarter. Chrstianity, Muslim & Jew religions are going away eventually just like all the ones before them. What will replace them? A generic god.

Notice how America has laws and doesn't need religion? We are a secular society. In other words an atheist run country with the majority of the members being religious. It was like when Saddam a Sunni ran Iraq that was mostly Shiite. LOL.