We don't know. Are you saying god planted his seed? Is that your final answer? Because that is plain old ignorant. Does Zeus still create lightening in your mind?
Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
- Thread starter newpolitics
- Start date
We don't know. Are you saying god planted his seed? Is that your final answer? Because that is plain old ignorant. Does Zeus still create lightening in your mind?
The gawds created meteors to chase away jinn.
Everyone knows that.
āAnd (the Jinn who had listened to the Qur'an said): We had sought the heaven but had found it filled with strong warders and meteors.
Koran 72:8
You just need some new gawds.
Number 21
Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.
The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.
Until we understand something we ādo not knowā. Positing a āgodā in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
See also: Critical thinking (a must watch), Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch).
āIt is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.ā ā Carl Sagan
āGod is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance thatās getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.ā- Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why there is no god
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,102
- 245
What I said is you wouldn't understand the math, and the question you asked was not about origins. Feel free to quote it to prove yourself wrong, if you really feel the need.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,102
- 245
I did not, but feel free to keep lying to yourself.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,102
- 245
There you go assuming you are intelligent again.
Can you point out to me anywhere in that post where I said the Bible is evidence?
Didn't think so, which makes your entire post a straw man argument.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,102
- 245
Yet there is.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,102
- 245
Believe it or not, I am not here to teach you, I am here to mock you. If you want to learn read it for yourself, or, if you can't read, find someone else to tell you.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Okay. It's not my place to tell you what to say. I'm afraid to cross you. LOL! Just kidding. I just wanted to let you know she means well. She just wasn't thinking things through or realizing what QW was doing. But I take your point. I too was rankled by the notion that defending my posts against his lies constituted a sin on my part when it's he who is intentionally lying, for we were well past the point of it being mere ignorance. But just keep in mind that she never really understood what QW was actually doing. If it weren't premeditated I wouldn't be on his case. She was thinking that he might be right, not realizing that he wasn't. You and I know he was lying the whole time. She just wasn't comparing the things I was actually writing against the things he claimed I was writing because she closed her mind off to my posts.
That's what you get when you only listen to one side of the story. Junk. Just like she never bothered with the other side of the story about free will. She still really has no clue as to the problems you were trying to tell her about.
It just never occurred to QW's arrogant ass that he was dealing with someone who actually knows the various forms of logic for realies, not pretendies, someone who doesn't need links and quotes off the Internet to make his case because it's already in his head, once again, for realies, not pretendies. LOL!
We'd have to agree on some intelligible definition of terms before I could concede or deny most of the claims on your list. Can you clarify what the following terms mean?: Cosmological order, transcendent ground of origin, absolutely unparalleled state of perfection. If I can make sense of those, maybe I can decide whether "it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination."
Last edited:
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Why are you asking him to show what has already been shown to you? Here ya go.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9960056/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9954159/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9954171/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9954248/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9954332/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9948790/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9948620/
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
On the Universal Principle of Identity I
This is addressed to Fox, Justin, but you might as well read it as it pertains to what ol' QW would have us not think about, and apparently Fox doesn't want to think about it either. Her post, however, is illustrative. It's not hard, just requires some background, so I'll break it up into different parts.
I don't dispute any of that except what's in bold. That is a bald assertion, an empirically verifiable assertion that you have not demonstrated. And because you can't imagine how that could possibly be false and because I refuse to take your word on it sans any said demonstration, you assume to know something I don't. You assume that I am being closed-minded and dogmatic.
Are you sure that's true, given the fact of the inherent logical problem with your statement pointed out by Justin?
What precisely are these arguments that are just as logically valid as the view of historical orthodoxy?
The fact of the matter is that all of the variously tweaked arguments are variations on three solutions. Two of them are asserted within the realm of your paradigm. Your solution is the diminution of divine omniscience based on the assumption that the coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will is, otherwise, an irresolvable paradox, which merely begs the question as it disregards the ramifications of the principle of identity.
There is no question that QW has mangled the facts of logic on this thread, initially out of ignorance, while setting himself up as one who is an authority on logic. He is no such thing. He's a fraud. And his responses to correction in which he habitually claims that I do not understand or accept the conventions of alternate forms of logic, or that alternate forms of logic overturn anything I've shared on this thread are not only false, but evince that he is consciously lying, deliberatively and shamelessly. Justin understands classical and constructive logic better than he, and Justin is just learning the latter.
You have decided that Justin and I are out of line for calling him out on this, but that is merely you closing your mind to the reality of the situation.
Apparently you missed the several posts written by me wherein I disregarded QW's sneering arrogance and did not respond in kind . . . at first. Apparently you missed Justin's conciliatory note regarding the essence of QW's misapprehension of the law of the excluded middle. Apparently you missed the fact that QW avoided my post on constructive logic and continued to imply that I was ignorant of the facts.
I have been formulating mathematical proofs in constructive logic for years. No one who understood the conventions of constructive logic, let alone the conventions of logic in general, at the level he implies to operate at, while never once demonstrating anything of the kind, mind you, would spout his sophomorically inane tripe. There's no way in hell his tripe about the principle of identity, for example, could be true.
All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:
That does not violate any of the laws of thought! If it did, given the fact that the laws of thought are hardwired and hold universally for all sound, developmentally mature minds, we wouldn't be able to do expressive set logic regarding complex entities of single predicates, including concepts like infinity, eternity, absoluteness, perfection, universality and so on. . . . We obviously do apprehend and define these concepts metaphysically and semantically without breaking a sweat.
And the alternate rules for axioms in artificial, alternate-world forms of logic (which are still contingent on real-world, organic logic) do not undermine this universal principle of identity in any way, shape or form.
Any given A may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously holds true in constructive logic too: it remains an incontrovertible proposition assigned a truth value as it's inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof. The fact of the suspension of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms in construct logic are utterly irrelevant. Those axioms in classical logic are the analytical proofs for the universal principle, and in constructive logic, instances of violations of the excluded middle and double negation elimination can still be demonstrated discretely on a case-by-case basis. This universal principle of identity is analytically affirmed by these in constructive logic too.
QW is an idiot and a liar pretending to understand things he does not.
But allow me to make his error abundantly clear as promised earlier.
Let's take the now proverbial Lying QW example of the Majorana particle, which is a discrete subatomic particle that is both matter and antimatter simultaneously; i.e., the Majorana fermion is it's own matter and antimatter simultaneously. Now according to Mr. Logic this existent violates the organic/classical law of the excluded middle: For all A: A OR ~A, which means that any given proposition/entity must be either its positive or negative form, or everything must either be or not be.
To get the gist of this law, we must understand the gist of the others first. The law of identity states that A = A, which means that whatever a thing is, it is. The law of contradiction states that NOT (A = NOT-A), which means that any given proposition/entity cannot be what it is and not what it is; in other words, two things that are diametrically opposed by nature or merely different by nature cannot be the same thing at the same time.
Finally, there cannot be an intermediate between contradictions or a third possibility between contradictions.
Mr. Logic's problem is that he imagines that because the Majorana fermion is it's own matter and antimatter simultaneously, it constitutes a third or intermediate form of cosmological material. But of course we don't cut a dog in half, for example, and say that the original whole was never a dog simply because it's now two parts of a dead dog: the front half (A) and the back half (B), which, as separated, are two different things, neither of which is a dog.
When we define the metaphysical being of any given A or discrete existent, we don't ask What are it?, but What is it? We don't split a single existent into two parts or "split the predicate" and imagine that we're still talking about the same whole.
The Majorana fermion is, not are, it's own matter and antimatter simultaneously, or the Majorana fermion is, not are, both matter and antimatter simultaneously: A = A = whatever a thing is, it is.
That is the whole of the The Majorana fermion. The Majorana fermion is never just matter or never just antimatter; it's never just its own matter or just its own antimatter. It's always its own matter and antimatter simultaneously.
What is infinity in terms of numbers or existents?
The organic/classical laws of logic are not violated by any of these things.
This is addressed to Fox, Justin, but you might as well read it as it pertains to what ol' QW would have us not think about, and apparently Fox doesn't want to think about it either. Her post, however, is illustrative. It's not hard, just requires some background, so I'll break it up into different parts.
I don't dispute any of that except what's in bold. That is a bald assertion, an empirically verifiable assertion that you have not demonstrated. And because you can't imagine how that could possibly be false and because I refuse to take your word on it sans any said demonstration, you assume to know something I don't. You assume that I am being closed-minded and dogmatic.
Are you sure that's true, given the fact of the inherent logical problem with your statement pointed out by Justin?
What precisely are these arguments that are just as logically valid as the view of historical orthodoxy?
The fact of the matter is that all of the variously tweaked arguments are variations on three solutions. Two of them are asserted within the realm of your paradigm. Your solution is the diminution of divine omniscience based on the assumption that the coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will is, otherwise, an irresolvable paradox, which merely begs the question as it disregards the ramifications of the principle of identity.
There is no question that QW has mangled the facts of logic on this thread, initially out of ignorance, while setting himself up as one who is an authority on logic. He is no such thing. He's a fraud. And his responses to correction in which he habitually claims that I do not understand or accept the conventions of alternate forms of logic, or that alternate forms of logic overturn anything I've shared on this thread are not only false, but evince that he is consciously lying, deliberatively and shamelessly. Justin understands classical and constructive logic better than he, and Justin is just learning the latter.
You have decided that Justin and I are out of line for calling him out on this, but that is merely you closing your mind to the reality of the situation.
Apparently you missed the several posts written by me wherein I disregarded QW's sneering arrogance and did not respond in kind . . . at first. Apparently you missed Justin's conciliatory note regarding the essence of QW's misapprehension of the law of the excluded middle. Apparently you missed the fact that QW avoided my post on constructive logic and continued to imply that I was ignorant of the facts.
I have been formulating mathematical proofs in constructive logic for years. No one who understood the conventions of constructive logic, let alone the conventions of logic in general, at the level he implies to operate at, while never once demonstrating anything of the kind, mind you, would spout his sophomorically inane tripe. There's no way in hell his tripe about the principle of identity, for example, could be true.
All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:
Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.
A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.
A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.
That does not violate any of the laws of thought! If it did, given the fact that the laws of thought are hardwired and hold universally for all sound, developmentally mature minds, we wouldn't be able to do expressive set logic regarding complex entities of single predicates, including concepts like infinity, eternity, absoluteness, perfection, universality and so on. . . . We obviously do apprehend and define these concepts metaphysically and semantically without breaking a sweat.
And the alternate rules for axioms in artificial, alternate-world forms of logic (which are still contingent on real-world, organic logic) do not undermine this universal principle of identity in any way, shape or form.
Any given A may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously holds true in constructive logic too: it remains an incontrovertible proposition assigned a truth value as it's inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof. The fact of the suspension of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms in construct logic are utterly irrelevant. Those axioms in classical logic are the analytical proofs for the universal principle, and in constructive logic, instances of violations of the excluded middle and double negation elimination can still be demonstrated discretely on a case-by-case basis. This universal principle of identity is analytically affirmed by these in constructive logic too.
QW is an idiot and a liar pretending to understand things he does not.
But allow me to make his error abundantly clear as promised earlier.
Let's take the now proverbial Lying QW example of the Majorana particle, which is a discrete subatomic particle that is both matter and antimatter simultaneously; i.e., the Majorana fermion is it's own matter and antimatter simultaneously. Now according to Mr. Logic this existent violates the organic/classical law of the excluded middle: For all A: A OR ~A, which means that any given proposition/entity must be either its positive or negative form, or everything must either be or not be.
To get the gist of this law, we must understand the gist of the others first. The law of identity states that A = A, which means that whatever a thing is, it is. The law of contradiction states that NOT (A = NOT-A), which means that any given proposition/entity cannot be what it is and not what it is; in other words, two things that are diametrically opposed by nature or merely different by nature cannot be the same thing at the same time.
Finally, there cannot be an intermediate between contradictions or a third possibility between contradictions.
Mr. Logic's problem is that he imagines that because the Majorana fermion is it's own matter and antimatter simultaneously, it constitutes a third or intermediate form of cosmological material. But of course we don't cut a dog in half, for example, and say that the original whole was never a dog simply because it's now two parts of a dead dog: the front half (A) and the back half (B), which, as separated, are two different things, neither of which is a dog.
When we define the metaphysical being of any given A or discrete existent, we don't ask What are it?, but What is it? We don't split a single existent into two parts or "split the predicate" and imagine that we're still talking about the same whole.
The Majorana fermion is, not are, it's own matter and antimatter simultaneously, or the Majorana fermion is, not are, both matter and antimatter simultaneously: A = A = whatever a thing is, it is.
Let X = matter; let Y = antimatter; let M = the Majorana fermion.
A: A = A = M = {Y and Y simultaneously}.
A: A = A = M = {Y and Y simultaneously}.
That is the whole of the The Majorana fermion. The Majorana fermion is never just matter or never just antimatter; it's never just its own matter or just its own antimatter. It's always its own matter and antimatter simultaneously.
What is infinity in terms of numbers or existents?
Let I = Infinity.
A: A = A = I = {all the numbers there are simultaneously} or = {all existents or potential existents simultaneously}.
A: A = A = I = {all the numbers there are simultaneously} or = {all existents or potential existents simultaneously}.
The organic/classical laws of logic are not violated by any of these things.
Last edited:
Justin Davis
Senior Member
- Sep 21, 2014
- 791
- 163
- 45
I exist.
Cosmological order = The other things that exist.
Transcendent ground of origin = The idea of God exists (immaterial origin as opposed to material origin).
Absolutely unparalleled state of perfection = God by the definition, the greatest thing that exists.
Same ideas you have, whether you believe them to be imaginary or not.
Justin Davis
Senior Member
- Sep 21, 2014
- 791
- 163
- 45
You lost me on the excluded middle, but if you have something to say, just say it. I decide if it's worthy of value. I don't do esoteric, Gnosticism, which is all I've gotten form you so far as you express your opinions as objectively discernible absolutes without the objective part.
Justin Davis
Senior Member
- Sep 21, 2014
- 791
- 163
- 45
You don't know. Are you saying you planted His seed? It that your final answer? That's plain crazy. Is Zeus your god?
Justin Davis
Senior Member
- Sep 21, 2014
- 791
- 163
- 45
If that's true then we're in the same boat of "distributed minds" because we all have an idea(s) of God in our minds, especially those who think their God.
Well, no, they're not. It sounds like, if I may infer, that when you say 'transcendent ground of origin', what you really mean is the suggestion that a god created the universe - which really isn't the same thing as "the idea of God exists". Anyway, transcendent doesn't mean much to me, other than an oblique reference to supernatural, which I've never been able to make any sense of. A thing is either real, or it is not.
Until we understand something we ādo not knowā. Positing a āgodā in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
And what are your original ideas exactly?
Your more often than not inscrutable or incoherent ideas? Ideas like how logic at the human level defines things as if it were human sentience itself, science precedes philosophy, the Majorana particle violates the law of the excluded middle, the principle of identity, which ultimately encompasses the construct of infinity, is not the comprehensive principle above the three laws of thought, alternate forms of logic or not contingent on the organic/classical laws of thought, constructive logic invalidates the principle/law of identity or invalidates the law contradiction, the suspension of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms means that these are invalided by the rules of constructive logic, any number of the things I asserted are invalided by alternate forms of logic?. . . . I could go on.
Yeah. All of those ideas of yours are original alright. They're all wrong as hell and irrational, but they're original. That's for sure.
Tells us Mr. Original Thought, if nothing I've shared here is new to you than how did you manage to mangle the distinction between epistemological subjectivism and the absolute principle of identity from my posts? You know, before you said you didn't when your error finally dawned on you, when the ramifications finally sunk in? You obviously had no clue where that was going at all. LOL!
Remember when you refused to imagine there was anyway in hell absolute omniscience and actual free will could coexist without contradiction? You thought that contention was solely based on the construct of the eternal now. Wrong. LOL!
And remember your error, Mr. Reader of Hebrew, regarding the nature of the conditional and final decrees of the semantic construct of it repented in scripture.
I could go on. . . .
The reason why my ideas alluded you, and not just the ones I listed but several more, are in the cannon of the greatest ideas is because they have withstood the test of time, liar, unlike your ideas that are in fact not origin, but have been repeated by idiots throughout history.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Newark mayor arrested at ICE facility claims he was 'targeted' after court hearing
- Started by Hollie
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
Stay-at-home mom Googled herself and found out she was wrongly indicted on drug charges in another state- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 2
-
Eyeing 2028 Presidential Bid, Gavin Newsom Distances Self From Gavin Newsom
- Started by Votto
- Replies: 2
Latest Discussions
-
-
MLB reinstates Pete Rose and others, paving way for Hall of Fame consideration
- Latest: StatesRightsForever
-
