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

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?

Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a yes or no?

That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

To #4, no.

To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.

Go away. I'm not responding to any more of your argumentless bullshit! You've already acknowledge the five things. You couldn't overthrow the MPTA. Nobody can with classical logic without affirming it. Shut up!

 

[Justin Davis]

It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?

Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a yes or no?

That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

To #4, no.

To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.

Boring!




zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[dblack]

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.

But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.

Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.

 

[G.T.]

It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?

Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a yes or no?

That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

To #4, no.

To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.

Go away. I'm not responding to any more of your argumentless bullshit! You've already the five things. You couldn't overthrow MPTA. Nobody can with classical without affirming it. Shut up!

"youve already the five things"


like you guys have a tick.

No, the five things you guys have dishonestly changed, and what you think logically follows from them doesn't.

MPTA is overthrown as being a naked assertion and viciously circular. And saying such doesn't affirm it. You keep saying that, but you can't say why. It's because you can't show that absolute knowledge requires a mind to ground it. And until you can, it is not logical to use it as a premise.

And again on the five things - you're being dishonest and so is Justin.

I said that an all knowing knower would know that it's all knowing. by definition.

I did not say:

*an all knowing knower exists
*god would BE an all knowing knower
*an all knowing knower, if one did exist, would be the creator


You then change my comment from "an all knowing knower would know its all knowing" - - - - - to "the divine potentiality is necessarily the supreme being of all creation" - - - - - which COMPLETELY CHANGES what you keep saying "I conceded to." #1 - IT ASSERTS AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE TO BE GROUNDED OR ABSOLUTE. I HAPPEN TO DISAGREE WITH THAT, BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATED AND THE OPPOSITE IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE, AND SO IT'S TAKING A LIBERTY TO SAY THAT IT MUST BE. HENCE MPTA SUCKS A FAT COCK.


sO LONG AS YOU AND YOUR MINION CONTINUE YOUR DISHONESTY, I WILL CONTINUE TO POINT IT OUT.

 

[Justin Davis]

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.

But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.

Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.

Boring! Endlessly quibbling about the facts. Never getting to real ideas. Phony claims. Phony logic.

Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?

Are all atheists liars?

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.

But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.

Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.

Boring! Endlessly quibbling about the facts. Never getting to real ideas. Phony claims. Phony logic.

Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?

Are all atheists liars?

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

LOL! Justin.

 

[dblack]

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.

But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.

Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.

Boring! Endlessly quibbling about the facts. Never getting to real ideas. Phony claims. Phony logic.

Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?

Are all atheists liars?

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bullshit is the right call. I thought you guys were discussing an argument for the existence of god. Turns out you're just trying to control word definitions. Orwell would be impressed.

 

[Justin Davis]

It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?

Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a yes or no?

That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

To #4, no.

To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.

Go away. I'm not responding to any more of your argumentless bullshit! You've already the five things. You couldn't overthrow MPTA. Nobody can with classical without affirming it. Shut up!

"youve already the five things"


like you guys have a tick.

No, the five things you guys have dishonestly changed, and what you think logically follows from them doesn't.

MPTA is overthrown as being a naked assertion and viciously circular. And saying such doesn't affirm it. You keep saying that, but you can't say why. It's because you can't show that absolute knowledge requires a mind to ground it. And until you can, it is not logical to use it as a premise.

And again on the five things - you're being dishonest and so is Justin.

I said that an all knowing knower would know that it's all knowing. by definition.

I did not say:

*an all knowing knower exists
*god would BE an all knowing knower
*an all knowing knower, if one did exist, would be the creator


You then change my comment from "an all knowing knower would know its all knowing" - - - - - to "the divine potentiality is necessarily the supreme being of all creation" - - - - - which COMPLETELY CHANGES what you keep saying "I conceded to." #1 - IT ASSERTS AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE TO BE GROUNDED OR ABSOLUTE. I HAPPEN TO DISAGREE WITH THAT, BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATED AND THE OPPOSITE IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE, AND SO IT'S TAKING A LIBERTY TO SAY THAT IT MUST BE. HENCE MPTA SUCKS A FAT COCK.


sO LONG AS YOU AND YOUR MINION CONTINUE YOUR DISHONESTY, I WILL CONTINUE TO POINT IT OUT.

Boring!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[G.T.]

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.

But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.

Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.

Boring! Endlessly quibbling about the facts. Never getting to real ideas. Phony claims. Phony logic.

Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?

Are all atheists liars?

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bullshit is the right call. I thought you guys were discussion an argument for the existence of god. Turns out you're just trying to control word definitions. Orwell would be impressed.

exactly


"we cant prove god in the ultimate sense but we can prove god logically!!!"


derp derp derp

it advances nothing except ego, and it's also based on very shaky ground masquerading as intelligence.

 

[G.T.]

justin is reduced to dogshit commentary, he's been added to ignore.

 

[hobelim]

OK so let's talk about the message in the Bible in terms of the development of human awareness and consciousness to reach maturity where there is collective harmony and peace.

Do you follow at least these interpretations that are very loose and general
1. the idea that Adam and Eve represent when man became self aware
and discovered free will and making choices so there are positive and negative consequences
and that past generations can affect future generations, or some variation of that theme.
I've seen this interpreted as shame about sex, or the karma that comes from eating meat
and corrupted our spirit, or the shift in trends from egalitarian to women being dominated by men
(and even that was interpreted two ways, one as a spiritual trend to replace matriarchal
society with patriarchal systems that dominate today,
and another interpretation was that economically men who hunted meat began to be
valued greater than the women and workers who gathered grains and vegetables,
so this dominance of man was economic and split people into classes to cause the downfall of human equality
and to keep women/workers subservient while the patriarchal leaders rule and monopolize the wealth)

what is your take on the symbolism of Adam and Eve and downfall of humanity?
is it EGO? ie become aware of our own will and desire in competition with other people or tribes
is it related to sex and gender?
is it class and economic or political dominance?

Hi Emily,

I will respond to the other questions in another post.

As far as the story of Adam and Eve, no, no, no and no.

The story is not about becoming self aware, sex or gender, the transition between hunting and gathering and farming and animal husbandry, matriarchal and patriarchal societies, eating meat, the first human beings, original sin, political dominance, competition with other tribes, or the downfall of humanity.


simply put it is a bronze age Hebrew version of a fairy tale, a story intended to educate children recently freed from bondage in Egypt about the dangers of losing your mind in a world where they were surrounded and vastly outnumbered by superstitious and irrational knuckle dragging barbarians, the beasts of the field, and the Nachash, the lowest of them all, were brazen deceivers who roamed the wilderness in search of the gullible.

The Hebrew word for serpent, Nachash, is both a noun and an adjective which means shining one, brazen, serpent or anyone who practices divination, the shining stars of the ancient world.

It is no small coincidence that the term 'breath of life' is Egyptian in origin and the Pharaoh, who was able to talk, wore a serpent on his head and disputed with Moses about God..

 

[Hollie]

It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?

Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a yes or no?

That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

To #4, no.

To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.

Go away. I'm not responding to any more of your argumentless bullshit! You've already acknowledge the five things. You couldn't overthrow the MPTA. Nobody can with classical logic without affirming it. Shut up!

You're like a petulant child who has been scolded for bad behavior and sent to his room for a time out.

 

[Justin Davis]

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.

But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.

Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.

Boring! Endlessly quibbling about the facts. Never getting to real ideas. Phony claims. Phony logic.

Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?

Are all atheists liars?

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

LOL! Justin.

They're all bores, liars, rude, stupid, dense and insane. dblack quibbles over definitions and whines like a girl after you told him his definition was okay, asks you about atheism and whines like a girl again you for answering his stupid question. Duh. God doesn't exist. Really? Well, the idea God is in your head, where did you get it? Do you get a straight answer? You get some convoluted crap which avoids a direct answer to a simple question. They're intellectual cowards. They know their logic is pure crap. That's why 99% of time there's no argument, boring idiots.

You exist. The universe exists. The possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated (and you lying idiots know the universe is the evidence for God and that's were you get YOUR idea for God). Creator (supreme being) means everything else are creatures. Duh. Science can't falsify or verify God's existence.

Seriously, I showed the five things to my little girl yesterday and asked what it meant? She even understood the atheist thing.

ONE POST WAS ALL THAT WAS NEEDED FOR THIS. The answers are all yes.

 

[Justin Davis]

It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?

Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a yes or no?

That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

To #4, no.

To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.

Go away. I'm not responding to any more of your argumentless bullshit! You've already acknowledge the five things. You couldn't overthrow the MPTA. Nobody can with classical logic without affirming it. Shut up!

You're like a petulant child who has been scolded for bad behavior and sent to his room for a time out.

Boring!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Justin Davis]

Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is. She thinks Hollie's a genius. How stupid is that? Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.

 

[Justin Davis]

justin is reduced to dogshit commentary, he's been added to ignore.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[dblack]

Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is. She thinks Hollie's a genius. How stupid is that? Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.

So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?

 

[Justin Davis]

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.

But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.

Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.

Boring! Endlessly quibbling about the facts. Never getting to real ideas. Phony claims. Phony logic.

Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?

Are all atheists liars?

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bullshit is the right call. I thought you guys were discussion an argument for the existence of god. Turns out you're just trying to control word definitions. Orwell would be impressed.

exactly


"we cant prove god in the ultimate sense but we can prove god logically!!!"


derp derp derp

it advances nothing except ego, and it's also based on very shaky ground masquerading as intelligence.

What a liar. You admitted your argument against is failed. What a liar. It's buried on the thread, so now he's starting all over.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Morons who go in circles. you idiots never get to any real ideas.

 

[Hollie]

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.

But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.

Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.

Boring! Endlessly quibbling about the facts. Never getting to real ideas. Phony claims. Phony logic.

Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?

Are all atheists liars?

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bullshit is the right call. I thought you guys were discussion an argument for the existence of god. Turns out you're just trying to control word definitions. Orwell would be impressed.

exactly


"we cant prove god in the ultimate sense but we can prove god logically!!!"


derp derp derp

it advances nothing except ego, and it's also based on very shaky ground masquerading as intelligence.

What a liar. You admitted your argument against is failed. What a liar. It's buried on the thread, so now he's starting all over.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Morons who go in circles. you idiots never get to any real ideas.

Why do you fundies get so violently angry when your specious opinions are challenged?

Did you really expect to post your unsupported opinions about magic, spirit realms and supernatural agents with everyone else coming to a consensus that "the gods did it", was a meaningful expectation?

If you're not emotionally or intellectually prepared to defend your arguments, you should reconsider your participation in these types of threads.

 

[Justin Davis]

Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is. She thinks Hollie's a genius. How stupid is that? Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.

So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?

It has nothing to with disproving atheism, but you can't wait to close your mind to what follows. Next. Move on. What's the point? How about getting the points of each one the first without quibbling over definitions and then bitching at for quibbling. Did you get the atheism thing yet? It's so obvious. Is your atheism pure dogma that's runs from the logic? There's nothing in the five things that aren't logically true. And my point is that GT is a liar who has admitted that every one of the five things are logically true already on this thread. He also knows he couldn't disprove the transcendental argument. He admitted that too. So is this what you atheist do? Go in circles all the time? Get to ideas? When do you atheists ever do that? I don't have his expertise, but In the meantime Rawlings is writing profound ideas. Let me ask you a question. Why do you keep trying to use logic to refute what obviously cannot be logically refuted if you don't believe in logic? You seem to think you can make up your own logic that obviously doesn't work. My point is that all these other atheists idiots and liars. You disappoint. Rawlings said earlier that when any of these discussions it just atheists this is all ya get. They ruin discussion. Will not let honest and objective discussion occur. Well, I guess he right, although I thought you might have some good insights from atheist perspective about what you think is going given the logical truth of these things psychologically, but no you're just like rest. You can't be real about the obvious either. Boring.