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

[M.D. Rawlings]

hu·mil·i·ty a modest or low view of one's own importance; humbleness

Dude, stop it. It's you claiming to know, absolutely, things about ultimate reality that Justin has never dreamed to have demonstrated or know on this thread by any conventional standards of justification. That's you all day long. And that's the point behind his counter-interrogatives. He gets it, you don't.

That’s QW too. Always pretending to be Mr. Original, Mr. Mentor, Mr. Enlightened. The only problem with him is that his stuff is inscrutably subjective and mysteriously indemonstrable knowledge that we're all just supposed to take his word on as he mangles virtually everything that is objectively demonstrable: ideas that he may have heard about before but clearly not as one who understands them in his own right at all. He's a head full of unexamined ideas that have in fact been regurgitated over and over again in history and discarded because they don't friggin work in the real word. They're fantasies, delusions, lies, crackpottery, pseudoscience, pseudo-philosophy, been-there-done-that, got the T-shirt, blew our brains and had to start all over again.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

1. You've conceded that we exist.

Check.

2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.

Check.

3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

Check.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

Check.

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of number 4 cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

Check.

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that everybody knows to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of your presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​

G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded. Hollie would have to concede these things. So would sealybobo. So does everybody. Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.

I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.

Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin. Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:

I haven't unreasonably asserted anything but the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin may exist and (4) 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.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

1. You've conceded that we exist.

Check.

2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.

Check.

3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

Check.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

Check.

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of number 4 cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

Check.

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that everybody knows to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of your presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​

G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded. Hollie would have to concede these things. So would sealybobo. So does everybody. Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.

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."

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.

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.

If I may, as, otherwise, it appears you guys will go in circles forever, transcendent ground (ultimate) of origin (creator) includes both ideas. It's a construct in philosophy and theology that means both. Number 4 goes to the idea of ultimacy premised on number 3. Natural-supernatural do correspond with real-unreal, but with material substance or nonmaterial substance. You have the idea of the cosmological order (all of material existence) and the idea of God (eternally self-subsistent, uncaused cause of first cause of an immaterial substance).

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Universal Principle of Identity II - Limiting God

Continued from http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9972649/


Limiting God's omniscience creates a legion of logical problems and paradoxes that are infinitely more complex and troubling than the one you think your solution eliminates. You're simply not cognizant of these things and have closed your mind to knowing or thinking about these things and so has QW. But then, of course, the problem you imagine to be real is an illusion.

The majority opinion since the Apostolic Fathers is that absolute omniscience and actual free will coherently coexist. (1) This was held to be true in scripture. (2) This was also held to be true because of the logical ramifications of the infiniteness of the principle of identity and the construct of the eternal now, which are objectively and universally apparent from the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, not just affirmed by scripture.

While you are free to believe whatever you wish about the testimony of scripture, neither you nor anyone else under the Sun can refute the cognitively universal fact of the latter assertion.

The construct of infinitely and the construct of a transcendentally timeless (eternal now) origin objectively hold absolutely and universally true via the principle of identity, whether you believe them to be ultimately true or not in terms of actual substance, whether you believe them to be asserted in scripture or not. These assertions, for example, would be assigned a truth value as inhabited by direct evidentiary proof in both classical and constructive logic! Hence, they are both rationally and empirically true.

Let that sink in.

We are talking about an empirical fact of human cognition! It is universally apparent that the construct of an infinitely perfect and timelessly unlimited, transcendent origin as the ground for all of existence and, therefore, the ground for the existence of the cosmological order is a potentiality that cannot be rationally eliminated. It does not matter what persons ultimately believe God to be below that absolute range of perfection. That is the highest conceivable standard. To assume anything less is to beg the question. Define something lower, I'll define something higher and so on . . . unto infinity.

We are not proposing whether or not there be any actual substance behind that construct. That proposition is something else altogether. In constructive logic that would be assigned a valid, albeit, unproved value. It’s valid because no inherent contradiction can be deduced from it, but it remains unproven because it is based on inferential evidence (the existence of the cosmological order), not on direct evidence.

I have proven that the principle of identity and its ramifications hold true in classical logic, and there can be no such thing as an alternate form of logic without the first law of identity ever; for that law is indispensably axiomatic. It is impossible to craft any alternate forms of logic without it, for the very same reason that it is impossible to rationally deny the fact of existence.

It is not my business to tell you what to believe about the testimony of scripture, but you are not free to believe that we don't exist while simultaneously insisting that I take you seriously under any standard of justification, which is the foundational fact of the principle of identity. The principle of identity and its ramifications, the constructs of infinity and timelessness, are, therefore, justifiably established.

The reason that so many, beginning most especially during the humanistic age of the Renaissance, came to question the transcendent ramifications of the principle of identity relative to the problems of origin and free will was due to the emergence of various philosophical arguments that these ramifications violated the construct of an anthropomorphic perspective, albeit, as premised on an existentially one-dimensional apriority, which, of course, begs the question. This apriority came to dominate the way in which the problem was analyzed in the literature, so much so that the transcendent ramifications were lost in the shuffle, even among Christian theologians and laymen who, though they should have known better, attempted to refute this objection on the terms of this secular apriority.

But as we may clearly see from both classical logic and in the light of constructive logic, there never was any reason whatsoever to accept this apriority in the first place.

Illusion.

The result of this is that the constructs of infinity and timelessness have been decoupled in the minds of many who attempt to account for free will in the face of this apriority by either (1) diminishing God's attributes or by (2) asserting the construct of the eternal now only. The new problems created by the former are staggering; the problem with the latter is that it revolves the matter from our immediate perspective of things, but does not resolve the mater from a transcendent perspective of things.

Something’s missing. What is it?

Hence, while you guys go on about the fact that the literature regarding the problem of free will is all over the map in both theological and philosophical circles, and as if I didn't know that, you fail to recognize the fact that that's only true in the case of the literature that presupposes this extra-biblical apriority. You guys have unwittingly presupposed this apriority in terms of necessity sans any real justification as you have simultaneously convinced yourselves that the universally apparent ramifications of the principle of identity (existential infiniteness and timelessness) are not supported by scripture.

But what you have absolutely closed your minds to is the fact that the existential infiniteness of the principle of identity resolves the matter absolutely.

No logical problems. No rational paradoxes.

With all due respect, Foxfrye, I don't accept the terms of your apriority. The transcendent resolution as extrapolated from an unobstructed view of the existential infiniteness of the principle of identity readily demonstrates that absolute omniscience and actual free will could coexist without contradiction in an existentially multidimensional reality. The biblical resolution is not subject to the secular philosopher's informal logical error of begging the question.

Any given A can be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without contradiction.

Foxfyre: The only thing I have criticized you for either overtly or by inference is that you have misrepresented my arguments and I think we do the universal Logos of the Gospels and the Epistles, namely, Jesus Christ, no favors when we present him in an angry, insulting, and/or contentious manner. But I rather like you and I won't fight with you, or anybody else, about my faith or beliefs or the questions I still have or the logic I utilize. I will wish you a pleasant evening and a good day tomorrow. ​

I have not misrepresented your arguments. That is merely your impression from a perspective that is not fully cognizant of the pertinent issues, a perspective that peremptorily assumed things that are not true, including things about my approach, my attitude and my methods.

I know the pertinent metaphysical and logical realities. I know the historical origin and the nature of the respective apriorities. I know the entire slate of the problems and the resolutions.

In summary, you have unwittingly presupposed an existentially one-dimensional apriority, when in fact the principle of identity asserts the perfectly rational potentiality that a transcendent order of being and/or a cosmological order of being could exist as a multidimensional realty in which things like free will and absolute foreknowledge could coexist simultaneously without contradiction.

QW has alleged that rational and material existents that are two or more things simultaneously violate the law of the excluded middle when that is patently false. There is no rational or evidentiary reason whatsoever to believe that we do not live in a multidimensional reality. On the contrary, not only are we able to coherently apprehend rational constructs that are two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without contradiction, today we are aware of material existents in this universe that are coherently two or more things simultaneously.

As for this notion of yours that I have been inordinately "angry, insulting, and/or contentious": QW is an idiot, a liar and a fraud. The only reason you don't know who the apostate is and who is defending the truth of the Logos in the face of sociopathic duplicity is because you bought in to his pontifications from on high and his pretensions of academic authority and open-mindedness.

The only person on this thread who has consistently and dogmatically been a prick to everyone who has disagreed with him is QW.

Your assessment of the situation is not rational, but emotional. I was initially civil with him, until his responses became increasingly insulting, patronizing, full of sneer and arrogance, whilst all the time he lied through his teeth about virtually everything, especially about his laughable pretensions of expertise in the field of logic.

 

[dblack]

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

1. You've conceded that we exist.

Check.

2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.

Check.

3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

Check.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

Check.

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of number 4 cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

Check.

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that everybody knows to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of your presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​

G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded. Hollie would have to concede these things. So would sealybobo. So does everybody. Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.

I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.

Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin. Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:

I haven't unreasonably asserted anything but the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin may exist and (4) 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.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

1. You've conceded that we exist.

Check.

2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.

Check.

3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

Check.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

Check.

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of number 4 cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

Check.

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that everybody knows to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of your presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​

G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded. Hollie would have to concede these things. So would sealybobo. So does everybody. Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.

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."

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.

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.

If I may, as, otherwise, it appears you guys will go in circles forever, transcendent ground (ultimate) of origin (creator) includes both ideas. It's a construct in philosophy and theology that means both. Number 4 goes to the idea of ultimacy premised on number 3. Natural-supernatural do correspond with real-unreal, but with material substance or nonmaterial substance. You have the idea of the cosmological order (all of material existence) and the idea of God (eternally self-subsistent, uncaused cause of first cause of an immaterial substance).

"Cosmological order" still sounds more loaded than "all of material existence" - but if that's all it is, I can buy into that. And if "supernatural" just means "nonmaterial substance" then I can accept that as well. But, to be clear, a software algorithm, or abstract concepts like freedom and justice, are by your definition, supernatural. But you must recognize that this is a 'naturalist' conception. My own understanding of naturalism doesn't preclude non-material substance, but neither does it allow for magic - ie a computer algorithm that isn't represented physically has no temporal existence.

My conception of gods is still, I think, radically different than yours. I don't see gods as 'uncaused cause', any more than I see human minds as such. In my view, gods are a kind of 'group awareness' present in human communities. It seem plausible that this kind of god predates individual self-awareness, and is probably closer to what other communal mammals experience.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

1. You've conceded that we exist.

Check.

2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.

Check.

3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

Check.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

Check.

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of number 4 cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

Check.

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that everybody knows to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of your presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​

G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded. Hollie would have to concede these things. So would sealybobo. So does everybody. Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.

Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin. Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:

I haven't unreasonably asserted anything but the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin may exist and (4) 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.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

1. You've conceded that we exist.

Check.

2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.

Check.

3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

Check.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

Check.

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of number 4 cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

Check.

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that everybody knows to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of your presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​

G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded. Hollie would have to concede these things. So would sealybobo. So does everybody. Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.

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."

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.

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.

If I may, as, otherwise, it appears you guys will go in circles forever, transcendent ground (ultimate) of origin (creator) includes both ideas. It's a construct in philosophy and theology that means both. Number 4 goes to the idea of ultimacy premised on number 3. Natural-supernatural do correspond with real-unreal, but with material substance or nonmaterial substance. You have the idea of the cosmological order (all of material existence) and the idea of God (eternally self-subsistent, uncaused cause of first cause of an immaterial substance).

"Cosmological order" still sounds more loaded than [1] "all of material existence" - but if that's all it is, I can buy into that. And if "supernatural" just means "nonmaterial substance" then I can accept that as well. [2] But, to be clear, a software algorithm, or abstract concepts like freedom and justice, are by your definition, supernatural. But [3] you must recognize that this is a 'naturalist' conception. My own understanding of naturalism doesn't preclude non-material substance, but neither does it allow for magic - ie a computer algorithm that isn't represented physically has no temporal existence.

My conception of gods is still, I think, radically different than yours. I don't see gods as 'uncaused cause', any more than I see human minds as such. In my view, gods are a kind of 'group awareness' present in human communities. It seem plausible that this kind of god predates individual self-awareness, and is probably closer to what other communal mammals experience.

(1) That's cool with me too. But the reason I write cosmological order goes to the potentiality of a multiverse that might contain universes comprised of substances that are not what we ordinarily think of as material in terms of our universe, however weird that might seem, and, cosmological order in philosophy and theology in terms of ontology means whatever is not spiritual. But you're term is fine with me. (2) Fair enough on the other point too. So we would have to tighten nonmaterial substance up a bit. Any suggestions? (3) I agree. (4) That's fine too, but just bear in mind that I can always define it in terms of the greatest conceivable state and assert that the universal idea we have of an immaterial/spiritual origin is higher than yours, i.e., a potentiality that cannot be denied out of hand logically. Someone has suggested that at the very least the agnostic position is rational, though not the unqualified atheist position for this reason. But to understand better my objective proof for what we may all know to be the highest standard upon reflection, see my posts on the Universal Principle of Identity.

 

[Boss]

I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.

That's where simple minds get confused.

Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.

Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.

What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.

There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.

2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.

Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.

I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective. Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either. That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right. It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.

Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W. because he's an idiot. Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.

We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another. That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves. This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see. He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies. Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.

I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.

Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.

It does not follow that evidence for God's existence that everyone would believe. Evidence and proof are not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Why do we have the idea of God? Why does the atheist have the idea of God? The answer to that question shows why what you're saying isn't true. Read this post: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 76 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is the evidence.

Evidence and proof are not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Why do we have the idea of God? Why does the atheist have the idea of God?

Evidence and proof are not the same thing even in constructive logic because we know logic can be invalid and evidence is always subjective. The only way to verify truth is faith. At the very nucleus, even believing reality and the universe exists requires faith.

I understand the principle you are explaining as to why humans have the idea of God. I don't believe you are wrong about that. Remember the preschool 'tests' we were all given as children... name the thing that doesn't belong in the group? Well, okay... If we put human beings along with other assorted animals and life forms on the planet, most everyone would pick humans to be the life form that didn't belong with the others because humans are unique. I mean, even the most devout Atheist has to agree, humans have something going that other forms of life simply don't have.

Now, we can all debate over the particulars of what exactly that "thing" is which humans have, but they certainly DO have it. Let us define that as "humanity." Humans have humanity, a unique set of attributes distinguishing them from all the other life forms. As impressive as other species of life are, none can match humanity in humans. So now the question becomes, why do humans have this humanity?

From the very first darkened caves of human civilization we know that one thing stands out as unique above everything else our species has going for it. Humans have always intrinsically believed in some power greater than self. True, not true, does not matter... what matters is, humans have always had this inclination to believe that, and it is inherent. This attribute of spirituality is directly related to the attribute of humanity. Now, whether one has supported the other or one has prompted the other, again... does not matter. What matters is, they work in conjunction with each other to make us very special and unique forms of carbon-based life.

Some Atheists like to take our "humanity" and use this to explain why we have spirituality. But the problem is, science cannot support them on this because we've never witnessed such a phenomenon in any other life form. In fact, if you go by the theories of Darwin and other evolutionists, it would indicate the two distinctly human attributes of humanity and spirituality have to be related and vital to the species. Unless you believe in magic or supernatural things, that appears to be the reality of the matter.

 

[amrchaos]

"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.

That does not violate any of the laws of thought!"

Actually, it does. A set is not an element of itself. (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!

You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as aspects of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god. Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person. In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.

However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.

Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.

OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.

 

[BreezeWood]

So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?

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?

proof of the existence of the Almighty does not verify your bible as a meaningful document for the understanding of life or as a means for Admission to the Everlasting and to the contrary has over time been the obstacle for enlightenment.

.

So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?

So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?

............

No one comes to the Father except through me.

the above ( scripture ) alone makes a fallacy of the bible.

the parable of Noah is the cursory, true discernible religion of that book and the path to the Everlasting.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?

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?

proof of the existence of the Almighty does not verify your bible as a meaningful document for the understanding of life or as a means for Admission to the Everlasting and to the contrary has over time been the obstacle for enlightenment.

.

So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?

So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?

............

No one comes to the Father except through me.

the above ( scripture ) alone makes a fallacy of the bible.

the parable of Noah is the cursory, true discernible religion of that book and the path to the Everlasting.

.

Why is the first a fallacy, though? I don't understand. The idea about the parable of Noah sounds interesting. What is that, please?

 

[BreezeWood]

So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?

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?

proof of the existence of the Almighty does not verify your bible as a meaningful document for the understanding of life or as a means for Admission to the Everlasting and to the contrary has over time been the obstacle for enlightenment.

.

So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?

So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?

............

No one comes to the Father except through me.

the above ( scripture ) alone makes a fallacy of the bible.

the parable of Noah is the cursory, true discernible religion of that book and the path to the Everlasting.

.

Why is the first a fallacy, though? I don't understand. The idea about the parable of Noah sounds interesting. What is that, please?

Why is the first a fallacy, though? I don't understand. The idea about the parable of Noah sounds interesting. What is that, please?

"No one comes to the Father except through me"

can you verify its origin ? -

that would be conclusive enough to the extent of its intent per the depths of the depravity it illicits, deriving from your book.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"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.

That does not violate any of the laws of thought!"

Actually, it does. A set is not an element of itself. (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!

You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as aspects of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god. Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person. In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.

However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.

Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.

OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.

"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "



They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement. It's not a dilemma for me. It works fine conceptually. The details are beyond us.

You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of the universal principle of identity. Hence, G = {F, S, H simultaneously} is preceded by A: A = A =. Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier simultaneously, wherein each element is a divine person. Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically? Yes. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion. But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity. Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well. But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.

 

[JohnA]

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. There is only belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but so far no one has.

Oh, you've been proven wrong, alright. You just haven't gotten beyond the slogans of brain freeze and properly beheld the obvious. The existence of the universe and sentience is the evidence, and the inherent, readily self-evident implications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness which compel the theist conclusion are not the stuff mere conjecture, let alone the stuff of unsupported assumptions. Indeed, calling the evidence and the impressions of first principles unsupported assumptions is ridiculous. You're unwitting imposition of materialism on the facts of existence on which theism is predicated is obscuring the actuality of the issue.

Notwithstanding, I have no power to convince anyone that God exists. My only interest here is setting the record straight as to what theism is actually based on. It's not based on the ethereal mumbo jumbo alleged by those who are simply not cognizant of the pertinent facts of existence.

You are arguing that the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God. You fail to connect the two things together, just insist that I accept it on faith. This is not evidence, just belief.

IMHO, the connection involves going back to the beginning of time.

That I am a Christian that believes in evolution rather than a 6 day creation is another subject.

My current conception regarding the universe is that prior to the big bang, all matter and energy that exists today was confined to a relatively miniscule volume...likely spherical. Outside of that collection of all matter and energy must have existed a supernatural being that caused the big bang which created the space-time continuum. That something was God...the giver of life and all that is around us.

Ridiculously simplistic, but a start. Shoot me down with your version. What caused the big bang?

I have no idea what caused it. I have no information upon which to base a conclusion. However, my ignorance is not a demonstration of your knowledge. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and your beliefs. But that does not make them anything more than belief.

Quite so. As I stated, my "theory" is just my opinion. I think that there had to be something outside of the collapsed universe that set off the big bang and caused the infinite energy to expand, cool, form molecules of the elements (hydrogen first) and develop into clusters that developed into masses with gravitational forces that interacted with each other and developed into what we now see thru the Hubbell telescope.

All I'm saying is that there was an outside cause to the expansion of the universe from a condensed starting point.

Again, this is conjecture on my part....not to be taken as positing that you are wrong if you don't agree.

God existed before time started. God set off the big bang.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Hey, Justin. I'm going to make another suggestion that will tighten things up for you: connectors.

Connectors (coordinating conjunctions): and, or, but, for, yet, nor, so. Use a comma in front of them:

You've got a great sense for subject-predicate-object units (main clauses, which can stand alone as sentences), but you're running these units together without breaks.​

Connectors (conjunctive adverbs): therefore, nevertheless, otherwise, moreover, nonetheless, howbeit, albeit, hence, thus, also, conversely, besides, however. . . Use a semicolon in front of them.

Used within subject-predicate-object units (main clauses): This is the way we do it, albeit, with lots of enthusiasm.

To join subject-predicate-object units (main clauses): Pigs have wings; therefore, pigs can fly.

Or you can just use a semicolon and skip the connector: This is true; that is true. (Stylistically, you could just go with a comma here as these are short clauses, but practice with semicolons.)


Think of them as plus signs:

________________________ , + ______________________ .

________________________ ; +, ______________________ .

________________________ ; _______________________ .


Get that down, and you'll be batting 500. (Also, you could go without the comma here stylistically, but that's the gist of it.)

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

Hey, Justin. I'm going to make another suggestion that will tighten things up for you: connectors.

Connectors (coordinating conjunctions): and, or, but, for, yet, nor, so. Use a comma in front of them:

You've got a great sense for subject-predicate-object units (main clauses, which can stand alone as sentences), but you're running these units together without breaks.​

Connectors (conjunctive adverbs): therefore, nevertheless, otherwise, moreover, nonetheless, howbeit, albeit, hence, thus, also, conversely, besides, however. . . Use a semicolon in front of them.

Used within subject-predicate-object units (main clauses): This is the way we do it, albeit, with lots of enthusiasm.

To join subject-predicate-object units (main clauses): Pigs have wings; therefore, pigs can fly.

Or you can just use a semicolon and skip the connector: This is true; that is true. (Stylistically, you could just go with a comma here as these are short clauses, but practice with semicolons.)


Think of them as plus signs:

________________________ , + ______________________ .

________________________ ; +, ______________________ .

________________________ ; _______________________ .


Get that down, and you'll be batting 500. (Also, you could go without the comma here stylistically, but that's the gist of it.)

Cool. I think I get this, and I will practice it.

 

[Justin Davis]

Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.

What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.

There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.

2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.

Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.

I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective. Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either. That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right. It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.

Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W. because he's an idiot. Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.

We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another. That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves. This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see. He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies. Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.

I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.

Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.

It does not follow that evidence for God's existence that everyone would believe. Evidence and proof are not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Why do we have the idea of God? Why does the atheist have the idea of God? The answer to that question shows why what you're saying isn't true. Read this post: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 76 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is the evidence.

Evidence and proof are not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Why do we have the idea of God? Why does the atheist have the idea of God?

Evidence and proof are not the same thing even in constructive logic because we know logic can be invalid and evidence is always subjective. The only way to verify truth is faith. At the very nucleus, even believing reality and the universe exists requires faith.

I understand the principle you are explaining as to why humans have the idea of God. I don't believe you are wrong about that. Remember the preschool 'tests' we were all given as children... name the thing that doesn't belong in the group? Well, okay... If we put human beings along with other assorted animals and life forms on the planet, most everyone would pick humans to be the life form that didn't belong with the others because humans are unique. I mean, even the most devout Atheist has to agree, humans have something going that other forms of life simply don't have.

Now, we can all debate over the particulars of what exactly that "thing" is which humans have, but they certainly DO have it. Let us define that as "humanity." Humans have humanity, a unique set of attributes distinguishing them from all the other life forms. As impressive as other species of life are, none can match humanity in humans. So now the question becomes, why do humans have this humanity?

From the very first darkened caves of human civilization we know that one thing stands out as unique above everything else our species has going for it. Humans have always intrinsically believed in some power greater than self. True, not true, does not matter... what matters is, humans have always had this inclination to believe that, and it is inherent. This attribute of spirituality is directly related to the attribute of humanity. Now, whether one has supported the other or one has prompted the other, again... does not matter. What matters is, they work in conjunction with each other to make us very special and unique forms of carbon-based life.

Some Atheists like to take our "humanity" and use this to explain why we have spirituality. But the problem is, science cannot support them on this because we've never witnessed such a phenomenon in any other life form. In fact, if you go by the theories of Darwin and other evolutionists, it would indicate the two distinctly human attributes of humanity and spirituality have to be related and vital to the species. Unless you believe in magic or supernatural things, that appears to be the reality of the matter.

Well, I agree with most of this; however, evidence is sometimes subjective and sometimes objective. Objective evidence is something tha t can be observed or demonstrated in a way that all can see it. The universe is objective evidence of God's existence. It is also inferred evidence of His existence rather than direct in scientific terms. What you're saying is that the decision of belief based on this evidence is subjective. The evidence is objective, the evaluation of it in terms of the decision of belief or the response is subjective. Agnostics take the position they do because of the objective evidence of the existence of the universe. Atheists take the position they do for the same reason, not because they're indifferent to the objective evidence, just in spit of the evidence. The a-theist sees the God idea because of the objective evidence too.

 

[Hollie]

2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.

Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.

I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective. Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either. That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right. It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.

Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W. because he's an idiot. Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.

We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another. That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves. This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see. He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies. Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.

I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.

Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.

It does not follow that evidence for God's existence that everyone would believe. Evidence and proof are not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Why do we have the idea of God? Why does the atheist have the idea of God? The answer to that question shows why what you're saying isn't true. Read this post: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 76 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is the evidence.

Evidence and proof are not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Why do we have the idea of God? Why does the atheist have the idea of God?

Evidence and proof are not the same thing even in constructive logic because we know logic can be invalid and evidence is always subjective. The only way to verify truth is faith. At the very nucleus, even believing reality and the universe exists requires faith.

I understand the principle you are explaining as to why humans have the idea of God. I don't believe you are wrong about that. Remember the preschool 'tests' we were all given as children... name the thing that doesn't belong in the group? Well, okay... If we put human beings along with other assorted animals and life forms on the planet, most everyone would pick humans to be the life form that didn't belong with the others because humans are unique. I mean, even the most devout Atheist has to agree, humans have something going that other forms of life simply don't have.

Now, we can all debate over the particulars of what exactly that "thing" is which humans have, but they certainly DO have it. Let us define that as "humanity." Humans have humanity, a unique set of attributes distinguishing them from all the other life forms. As impressive as other species of life are, none can match humanity in humans. So now the question becomes, why do humans have this humanity?

From the very first darkened caves of human civilization we know that one thing stands out as unique above everything else our species has going for it. Humans have always intrinsically believed in some power greater than self. True, not true, does not matter... what matters is, humans have always had this inclination to believe that, and it is inherent. This attribute of spirituality is directly related to the attribute of humanity. Now, whether one has supported the other or one has prompted the other, again... does not matter. What matters is, they work in conjunction with each other to make us very special and unique forms of carbon-based life.

Some Atheists like to take our "humanity" and use this to explain why we have spirituality. But the problem is, science cannot support them on this because we've never witnessed such a phenomenon in any other life form. In fact, if you go by the theories of Darwin and other evolutionists, it would indicate the two distinctly human attributes of humanity and spirituality have to be related and vital to the species. Unless you believe in magic or supernatural things, that appears to be the reality of the matter.

Well, I agree with most of this; however, evidence is sometimes subjective and sometimes objective. Objective evidence is something tha t can be observed or demonstrated in a way that all can see it. The universe is objective evidence of God's existence. It is also inferred evidence of His existence rather than direct in scientific terms. What you're saying is that the decision of belief based on this evidence is subjective. The evidence is objective, the evaluation of it in terms of the decision of belief or the response is subjective. Agnostics take the position they do because of the objective evidence of the existence of the universe. Atheists take the position they do for the same reason, not because they're indifferent to the objective evidence, just in spit of the evidence. The a-theist sees the God idea because of the objective evidence too.

The universe in no way can be viewed as objective evidence for the existence of your various gods or anyone else's gods.

You fundies have a difficult association with facts, evidence and simple concepts of honesty and integrity.

 

[Boss]

2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.

Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.

I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective. Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either. That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right. It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.

Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W. because he's an idiot. Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.

We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another. That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves. This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see. He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies. Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.

I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.

Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.

It does not follow that evidence for God's existence that everyone would believe. Evidence and proof are not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Why do we have the idea of God? Why does the atheist have the idea of God? The answer to that question shows why what you're saying isn't true. Read this post: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 76 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is the evidence.

Evidence and proof are not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Why do we have the idea of God? Why does the atheist have the idea of God?

Evidence and proof are not the same thing even in constructive logic because we know logic can be invalid and evidence is always subjective. The only way to verify truth is faith. At the very nucleus, even believing reality and the universe exists requires faith.

I understand the principle you are explaining as to why humans have the idea of God. I don't believe you are wrong about that. Remember the preschool 'tests' we were all given as children... name the thing that doesn't belong in the group? Well, okay... If we put human beings along with other assorted animals and life forms on the planet, most everyone would pick humans to be the life form that didn't belong with the others because humans are unique. I mean, even the most devout Atheist has to agree, humans have something going that other forms of life simply don't have.

Now, we can all debate over the particulars of what exactly that "thing" is which humans have, but they certainly DO have it. Let us define that as "humanity." Humans have humanity, a unique set of attributes distinguishing them from all the other life forms. As impressive as other species of life are, none can match humanity in humans. So now the question becomes, why do humans have this humanity?

From the very first darkened caves of human civilization we know that one thing stands out as unique above everything else our species has going for it. Humans have always intrinsically believed in some power greater than self. True, not true, does not matter... what matters is, humans have always had this inclination to believe that, and it is inherent. This attribute of spirituality is directly related to the attribute of humanity. Now, whether one has supported the other or one has prompted the other, again... does not matter. What matters is, they work in conjunction with each other to make us very special and unique forms of carbon-based life.

Some Atheists like to take our "humanity" and use this to explain why we have spirituality. But the problem is, science cannot support them on this because we've never witnessed such a phenomenon in any other life form. In fact, if you go by the theories of Darwin and other evolutionists, it would indicate the two distinctly human attributes of humanity and spirituality have to be related and vital to the species. Unless you believe in magic or supernatural things, that appears to be the reality of the matter.

Well, I agree with most of this; however, evidence is sometimes subjective and sometimes objective. Objective evidence is something tha t can be observed or demonstrated in a way that all can see it. The universe is objective evidence of God's existence. It is also inferred evidence of His existence rather than direct in scientific terms. What you're saying is that the decision of belief based on this evidence is subjective. The evidence is objective, the evaluation of it in terms of the decision of belief or the response is subjective. Agnostics take the position they do because of the objective evidence of the existence of the universe. Atheists take the position they do for the same reason, not because they're indifferent to the objective evidence, just in spit of the evidence. The a-theist sees the God idea because of the objective evidence too.

The universe is objective evidence of God's existence.
No... The universe is only objective evidence the universe appears to exist to those who have seen it and believe it to be true.

What I am talking about is not subjective evidence vs. objective evidence in a courtroom. All evidence is evaluated by a human who forms an opinion. That opinion may be formed on the basis of all kinds of perspectives and views, prejudices, preconceptions and bias. All evidence of any kind is subject to this.

Atheists reject the spiritual evidence that overwhelmingly proves God. In fact, they don't even consider it evidence, they don't believe in spiritual nature. They demand physical evidence of something that isn't physical, but physical is the only "exist" they comprehend.

 

[Hollie]

I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective. Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either. That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right. It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.

Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W. because he's an idiot. Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.

We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another. That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves. This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see. He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies. Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.

I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.

Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.

It does not follow that evidence for God's existence that everyone would believe. Evidence and proof are not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Why do we have the idea of God? Why does the atheist have the idea of God? The answer to that question shows why what you're saying isn't true. Read this post: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 76 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is the evidence.

Evidence and proof are not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Why do we have the idea of God? Why does the atheist have the idea of God?

Evidence and proof are not the same thing even in constructive logic because we know logic can be invalid and evidence is always subjective. The only way to verify truth is faith. At the very nucleus, even believing reality and the universe exists requires faith.

I understand the principle you are explaining as to why humans have the idea of God. I don't believe you are wrong about that. Remember the preschool 'tests' we were all given as children... name the thing that doesn't belong in the group? Well, okay... If we put human beings along with other assorted animals and life forms on the planet, most everyone would pick humans to be the life form that didn't belong with the others because humans are unique. I mean, even the most devout Atheist has to agree, humans have something going that other forms of life simply don't have.

Now, we can all debate over the particulars of what exactly that "thing" is which humans have, but they certainly DO have it. Let us define that as "humanity." Humans have humanity, a unique set of attributes distinguishing them from all the other life forms. As impressive as other species of life are, none can match humanity in humans. So now the question becomes, why do humans have this humanity?

From the very first darkened caves of human civilization we know that one thing stands out as unique above everything else our species has going for it. Humans have always intrinsically believed in some power greater than self. True, not true, does not matter... what matters is, humans have always had this inclination to believe that, and it is inherent. This attribute of spirituality is directly related to the attribute of humanity. Now, whether one has supported the other or one has prompted the other, again... does not matter. What matters is, they work in conjunction with each other to make us very special and unique forms of carbon-based life.

Some Atheists like to take our "humanity" and use this to explain why we have spirituality. But the problem is, science cannot support them on this because we've never witnessed such a phenomenon in any other life form. In fact, if you go by the theories of Darwin and other evolutionists, it would indicate the two distinctly human attributes of humanity and spirituality have to be related and vital to the species. Unless you believe in magic or supernatural things, that appears to be the reality of the matter.

Well, I agree with most of this; however, evidence is sometimes subjective and sometimes objective. Objective evidence is something tha t can be observed or demonstrated in a way that all can see it. The universe is objective evidence of God's existence. It is also inferred evidence of His existence rather than direct in scientific terms. What you're saying is that the decision of belief based on this evidence is subjective. The evidence is objective, the evaluation of it in terms of the decision of belief or the response is subjective. Agnostics take the position they do because of the objective evidence of the existence of the universe. Atheists take the position they do for the same reason, not because they're indifferent to the objective evidence, just in spit of the evidence. The a-theist sees the God idea because of the objective evidence too.

The universe is objective evidence of God's existence.
No... The universe is only objective evidence the universe appears to exist to those who have seen it and believe it to be true.

What I am talking about is not subjective evidence vs. objective evidence in a courtroom. All evidence is evaluated by a human who forms an opinion. That opinion may be formed on the basis of all kinds of perspectives and views, prejudices, preconceptions and bias. All evidence of any kind is subject to this.

Atheists reject the spiritual evidence that overwhelmingly proves God. In fact, they don't even consider it evidence, they don't believe in spiritual nature. They demand physical evidence of something that isn't physical, but physical is the only "exist" they comprehend.

There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.

 

[Boss]

There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.

There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.

 

[G.T.]

There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.

There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.

This is kind of self contradictory.

If god is real, it's not supernatural.

If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.