It's okay Frank let it go ... let it go... breathe deep...

Yep, stranger things have happened...go figure.

But you really out to put the "syllogism" to a logician...and see what he/she says. — Frank Apisa

I'm not following that Frank. Take a deep breath and think about what you just said. You critiqued the syllogism by ranting. In other words, you claimed foul, then suggested that you're not even knowledgeable enough to understand that which you disapproved. Frank, I'm starting to get worried brother...sorry, but how old are you again?

Amen...save the nonsense for someone willing to deal with it.

Contact a logician at a local university...and ask him/her to comment on your "syllogism."

You won't like the answer. — Frank Apisa

Is that another way of saying you lost and are throwing in the towel? Gee Frank, what a sore loser. I thought you had more integrity. Oh well, Karma is a mysterious thing. I think I understand now why the moderators closed that other thread that you did...it was indeed just another rant of sorts LOL

Be well my friend!

Really? I don't understand. Okay must be my bad again. Well, can you make them sound for me? I mean, you seem to be an expert. I'll anxiously await your correction, thanks!

1.If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).
2. But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).
3. Therefore, there is a God.

•First, for anything that came into existence, there must have been something that caused it to come into existence. Clearly, effects have causes. Pretty basic, and entirely consistent with our common-sense experience of the world.
•Second, the material universe (the cosmos) came into existence sometime in the past. Virtually everyone affirms this point because of the widespread and, I think, justified belief in the Big Bang.
•Therefore, the material universe must have had a cause.

As an alternative (just trying to help) maybe go back to my list that I made for you and pick some other concept to parse, that might be easier (for you). (Some of those relate to a posteriori types of phenomenon/experiences rather than a priori and deduction.)

TTP:

Okay, I'm bored, so you'll get the benefit of same :snicker: I'll babysit you if you want. Let's have some fun with deductive reasoning. Now, we don't seem to agree that Jesus existed in the Christian Bible (you haven't proved to me that the historical accounting of Jesus from the Bible is false), so I'm not sure what else to tell you on that. Your argument about historical figures was apples and oranges, thinking that JFK's existence was germane all because there was proof in movies and pictures. C'mon Frank, you can do better than that dude! Maybe argue about proof of primates or something from the same or similar time in history LOL.

Nevertheless, instead of Anselm's ontological argument (I don't buy into the Omni-x3 stuff) let's play around with the same kind of logic using logically necessary truth's and deductive reasoning, and oh BTW, that'll be 100 bucks. Here have at it:

I'm not a big 'morals/ethics' person, but here's the classic approach to the moral argument for God’s existence. Stated as a syllogism, it looks like this:

•If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).
•But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).
•Therefore, there is a God.

The form of the syllogism is valid (modus tollens), and the premises are true. Therefore, the argument is sound.

Another example is a version of the cosmological argument that simply posits causation itself.

Here’s the basic idea.
•First, for anything that came into existence, there must have been something that caused it to come into existence. Clearly, effects have causes. Pretty basic, and entirely consistent with our common-sense experience of the world.
•Second, the material universe (the cosmos) came into existence sometime in the past. Virtually everyone affirms this point because of the widespread and, I think, justified belief in the Big Bang.
•Therefore, the material universe must have had a cause.

Put most simply, “a Big Bang needs a big Banger.” The bang didn’t bang itself. Note, by the way, that this line of thinking puts the cause of the cosmos outside of the material universe. So the cause would have to be super-natural, timeless (like the speed of light and existing outside of time) immaterial/metaphysical and abstract (because of what we know about the nature of mathematics viz physical theories) etc. etc..

And so Frank, if you want to invoke God into the cosmological argument you can, by virtue of his/its a priori description. But what would that prove? Isn't the concept of God more than a priori logic?

Okay, I'm bored, so you'll get the benefit of same :snicker: I'll babysit you if you want. Let's have some fun with deductive reasoning. Now, we don't seem to agree that Jesus existed in the Christian Bible (you haven't proved to me that the historical accounting of Jesus from the Bible is false), so I'm not sure what else to tell you on that. Your argument about historical figures was apples and oranges, thinking that JFK's existence was germane all because there was proof in movies and pictures. C'mon Frank, you can do better than that dude! Maybe argue about proof of primates or something from the same or similar time in history LOL.

Nevertheless, instead of Anselm's ontological argument (I don't buy into the Omni-x3 stuff) let's play around with the same kind of logic using logically necessary truth's and deductive reasoning, and oh BTW, that'll be 100 bucks. Here have at it:

I'm not a big 'morals/ethics' person, but here's the classic approach to the moral argument for God’s existence. Stated as a syllogism, it looks like this:

•If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).
•But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).
•Therefore, there is a God.

The form of the syllogism is valid (modus tollens), and the premises are true. Therefore, the argument is sound.

Another example is a version of the cosmological argument that simply posits causation itself.

Here’s the basic idea.
•First, for anything that came into existence, there must have been something that caused it to come into existence. Clearly, effects have causes. Pretty basic, and entirely consistent with our common-sense experience of the world.
•Second, the material universe (the cosmos) came into existence sometime in the past. Virtually everyone affirms this point because of the widespread and, I think, justified belief in the Big Bang.
•Therefore, the material universe must have had a cause.

Put most simply, “a Big Bang needs a big Banger.” The bang didn’t bang itself. Note, by the way, that this line of thinking puts the cause of the cosmos outside of the material universe. So the cause would have to be super-natural, timeless (like the speed of light and existing outside of time) immaterial/metaphysical and abstract (because of what we know about the nature of mathematics viz physical theories) etc. etc..

And so Frank, if you want to invoke God into the cosmological argument you can, by virtue of his/its a priori description. But what would that prove? Isn't the concept of God more than a priori logic?

Not necessarily the object itself, only an appearance in which this property of the relation - the sentimental value - is perceived as a potential loss/lack. That would be sufficient for the feeling. The mind then makes sense of that feeling by attributing it to what is apparently missing - so it’s only at this point that the conceptual object is apperceived (this sequence is evidenced in recent neuroscience - see Lisa Feldman Barrett’s book ‘How Emotions Are Made’).

So without the object being apperceived, it’s not that nothing happens, rather it’s that nothing is understood to happen - except perhaps an unexplained feeling or emotion. — Possibility

My gut reaction is that her theory incorrectly conflates emotion with the metaphysical Will. The will to just be and survive and feel good. Or, the tension of existence or as her fellow counterpart Maslow would posit, to live an ordinary life of striving. And that involves innate, intrinsic raw 'dumb' emotion (presumably from the limbic system) that keeps us alive.

I'll read it and get back to you. I have my suspicions she does not consider the philosophy of aesthetics in her theories. Otherwise your 'appearance' and the 'object' are simply synonymous to one another.

Sorry dude, you gotta do some homework. This isn't remedial philosophy class. If you're arguing EOG, you gotta come to the table with the basic's. Sorry, do the necessary training (or read my response to Tim).

I'll refer you to the Anselm's ontological argument. Goggle it and get back to me. Or, see my response to Tim.

For you to suggest the Bible proves in any way that at least one god exists...is totally illogical.

Perhaps you ought to try you second best proof, because your "best proof" fails totally. — Frank Apisa

Frank! With all due respect, using that reasoning, you would have to prove that all historical accounts are either; true, false, half-true or half-false ad nauseum.

As a side note, what does it mean, in this context, to be illogical?

Does not mean anything. Word salad. What is "logically necessary"? How does it differ from necessary? — tim wood

Tim!

Not sure your previous ad hominem comments to me deserve a sincere response, especially since you prefer dropping F-bombs and seemingly have an axe to grind, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt one last time, otherwise you'll be relegated to my ignore list. (Actually, I'm not sure why you're even participating in this thread... .)

So, to answer your concern consider the statement: "There exists at least one true proposition". Call that proposition A. Is A necessarily true? Suppose I contend that A is false. Call this proposition B. "A is false."

But if A is false, so is B because B is a proposition. And if A is false there are no true propositions. So A must be true. It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.

Though not a huge fan of the ontological argument (because it's based on a priori logic---as I've argued with Jorndoe---and the resulting contradictions for Atheism/ their exclusive trust in using logic) the point is, if there exists necessary propositions, then the notion of a necessary Being is not obviously absurd. (And, exclusively using modal a priori logic, is logically possible--not necessarily false.)

I am pretty sure there are zero "mathematical, timeless, abstract truths" that describe existence. And if there were - whatever they might be - why would they "transcend physics"? What does transcend physics mean? Does it mean that physics is immanent and laws transcendent? How would that work?

#3 More nonsense. — tim wood

They transcend physics because they are mathematical truth's. Mathematical truth's are a priori, abstract, Platonic entities. And more importantly, the are considered Metaphysical. A Metaphysical language (kind of like Music). There are abstract mathematical objects whose existence seems independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets.

As an example, again, I can size a structural beam using abstract mathematical calculations that describe the beams existence ( when I design the structure). And I can also abstractly calculate the unseen laws of gravity using same. But existentially, we don't need either to build something or dodge some thing/falling objects. And finally, (although less analogous) I can write music that describes time signatures, chord progressions, rhythm, cadence, etc. that represents an abstract language known as the phenomena of music.

All I need to do to achieve this is to remind you of the philosophy of idealism, in which it is considered that consciousness (mind) is primary and the physical world we find ourselves in is some kind of mental projection, is contingent on the mind and consciousness of the beings who experience it. I know this is a big ask and it's not my personal philosophy. But The cogito accepts this possibility.

I think, therefore there is something.

The something cannot to divorced from the being doing the thinking. — Punshhh

Excellent point Punshhh. Likewise, I wasn't going to go there either with jorndoe because it's not my personal philosophy. Instead, I was going to save that Metaphysical argument (see concept-subjective v. objective truth- Metaphysics) if and when someone wanted to parse any one of those concepts from my so-called master list. George Berkeley of course championed that theory arguing only mental activity exists.

Similarly, as a footnote 'I think therefore I am' (as you alluded) is the old Metaphysical problem of dualism where the paradox of Being and becoming rears its head. And that's a good discussion point as well.

Thanks!

Oh okay got it

Here's my response:

Consciousness is logically necessary to perceive existence and by extension is metaphysically necessary. And that's because the physical laws (mathematical timeless, abstract truths) describing existence transcend physics itself. And that in turn transcends the rational concept of possible worlds, as we know them.

In other words, because we neither have a theory of everything nor an adequate theory of conscious existence, we can infer something else about human rationality and it's purpose and existence. This is one reason why Multiverse theories even exist in human consciousness. Because it's logically possible. It's paradoxical...but so is time and consciousness itself, among other things.

So the question to you is, if our concept of rational explanation derives from observations of the physical world, and from evolutionary inheritance, does it provide for adequate guidance when we are tangling with ultimate questions about existence? Meaning, is our understanding of the nature of existence and its properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought?

Honestly I'm confused, could you spell out your questions and concepts in plain English? I'd be more than happy to parse them.

Then maybe you can return the favor and answer mine, if you're even able to... LOL

With all due respect, is that your way of saying you cannot answer those questions concerning the nature of your own existence?

For example you're trying to use deductive logic which is basically arithmetic. We don't even understand the nature of arithmetic and its Platonic and timeless characteristics (nor do we know if it's a human invention or has an independent existence), so how how are you supposed to prove anything through that means and method?

Sounds to me like another metaphysical question with no answer. Which begs yet another question, how does the atheist square that circle? Isn't it paradoxical?

Maybe go back to my list that I made for Frank and pick some other concept to parse, that might be easier for you. (Some of those relate to a posteriori types of phenomenon/experiences rather than a priori and deduction.)

The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.' — Wayfarer

Sorry I missed that... It deserves a bit of emphasis if you will... .

Physics is mathematical, not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little: it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. For the rest our knowledge is negative.

Beautiful!

Consciousness is not necessary in general because there's a (simple) possible world without — that's the (simple) logic. — jorndoe

Consciousness is logically necessary to perceive existence and by extension is metaphysically necessary. And that's because the physical laws (mathematical timeless truths) describing existence transcend physics itself. And that in turn transcends the rational concept of possible worlds, as we know them.

In other words, because we neither have a theory of everything nor an adequate theory of conscious existence, we can infer something else about human rationality and it's purpose and existence. This is one reason why Multiverse theories even exist in human consciousness. Because it's logically possible. It's paradoxical...but so is time and consciousness itself, among other things.

So the question to you is, if our concept of rational explanation derives from observations of the physical world, and from evolutionary inheritance, does it provide for adequate guidance when we are tangling with ultimate questions about existence? Meaning, is our understanding of the nature of existence and its properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought?

suppose we might ask the old existential problem, why something, why anything at all? — jorndoe

Nice! How does Atheism support nihilism? And, do you realize your question in and of itself relates to Metaphysics? The reason is important because meaning of life or quality of life type questions (you wondering why there is something and not nothing) and issues from your self-awareness do not have any Darwinian survival advantages. Why should the Atheist care to even wonder about such an idea or ask such a Metaphysical question? This too, seems paradoxical. Please share, if you can.

Are you a Christian? — JerseyFlight

Frank's an Agnostic

The "historical" account of Jesus...is NOT an historical account of Jesus — Frank Apisa

I don't understand why you would deny that it's a historical account. What title or concept would you categorize or give to it?

Be that as it may...how does this account possibly show that at least one god exists? What if everything written is wrong...or interpreted way beyond recognition. — Frank Apisa

Sure, what if it's all wrong, and what what if it's all right. My study of history tells me that it's somewhere in the middle. Is that unreasonable?

John Kennedy was killed in an area with hundreds (perhaps thousands) of eye witnesses...and we have dozens upon dozens of stories about what happened. There are PICTURES and MOVIES of what happened...and we cannot get agreement. But you are willing to take the account of some individuals who lived thousands of years ago...who had a bias and motive to slant things...as (you will excuse the expression) gospel?

C'mon, Amen. — Frank Apisa

Frank think about what you just said. During that period in history there was no such thing as cameras. Nor were there movies.

C'mon Frank, don't grasp for straws.

Present your single most compelling piece of unambiguous evidence that at least one god exists. Then we can move on to what that god is like...and whether or not various descriptions of it work out. — Frank Apisa

Jesus existed and was known to be part God (his metaphorical son) and have a human consciousness. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.

Thank you for continuing here, Amen.

I asked for your #1 piece of unambiguous evidence that a god exists.

Give that a shot. — Frank Apisa

You're welcome Frank.

Well, sorry for the redundancy (and this may/may not be what you want to hear) but the answer in Christianity: the historical account of Jesus Christ.

Short of that, I offer that foregoing list of philosophical concepts that I welcome you to critique. As such, I propose you pick one (we were talking earlier about the possible differences between reason and 'belief') as merely a suggestive starting point.

My broader argument will be that based upon nature and the human condition, Atheism relies much more on ignorance, lack of sophistication and intuition, (to name a few deficiencies) to justify their belief system.

Frank, in accordance with the spirit of the OP (What are your positions on the arguments for God) the following will provide for sufficient discourse:

**List of pragmatic, existential, metaphysical and cognitive phenomena, including cosmology and logic:

**Some can easily overlap into other disciplines and/or domains, and this is by no means a comprehensive list

Logic/epistemology:

1. logical possibility
2. logical necessity
3. a priori v. a posteriori
4. synthetic a priori knowledge
5. binary v. dialectic reasoning
6. reason and belief

Phenomenology/Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. subjective truth v. objective truth
3. the religious experience
4. revelation
5. NDE
6. music
7. math
8. love
9. instinct
10.sentience

Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. self-awareness
3. the will
4. the sense of wonder
5. causation
6. sentience

Cosmology:

1. the illusion of time
2. holographic principle
3. participatory anthropic principle
4. energy
5. gravity
6. causation
7. Panentheism

The two most worthless philosophical protocols are Pascal's Wager and Occam's Razor. I do not use them. — Frank Apisa

The reason I bring that up is because your 'belief system' (we'll come back to what that means including the concept of belief itself) seems to indicate, that a sort of either/or binary analysis is taking place in your mind, hence, you rolling the dice/Pascal's Wager. And, don't misunderstand, you don't have to buy into anything, I was just making an obvious observation.

In a philosophical discussion (or a religious discussion) the use of "belief" is a way of disguising a guess. — Frank Apisa

Sort of a glib or insincere response that glossed over then true meaning of holding or having a 'belief', no? We'll come back to what that means (see below list). In the meantime, using logic, think about what it means for human's to have a belief about a some thing, ok?

am sure the people who "believe" there are no gods or who "believe" it is much more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...can also enumerate them.

None hold any water.

But give me your best one if you want and we can discuss it. — Frank Apisa

suppose you would. Just as I would suppose people who guess the other way would argue that your "beliefs" derive from ignorance. — Frank Apisa

**List of pragmatic, existential, metaphysical and cognitive phenomena, including cosmology and logic:

**Some can easily overlap into other disciplines and/or domains, and this is by no means a comprehensive list

Logic/epistemology:

1. logical possibility
2. logical necessity
3. a priori v. a posteriori
4. synthetic a priori knowledge
5. binary v. dialectic reasoning
6. reason and belief

Phenomenology/Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. subjective truth v. objective truth
3. the religious experience
4. revelation
5. NDE
6. music
7. math
8. love
9. instinct
10.sentience

Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. self-awareness
3. the will
4. the sense of wonder
5. causation
6. sentience

Cosmology:

1. the illusion of time
2. holographic principle
3. participatory anthropic principle
4. energy
5. gravity
6. causation
7. Panentheism

Frank!

Wow, this is quite a purging of sorts, eh!? Remember Pascal's Wager? That could be an analogious or a possible thesis to work from there... .

To that end, I would like to start with your definition of Belief? In your view, philosophically, what does it mean to hold or have a Belief (I'm just putting it in caps for emphasis)?

Second, as a Christian Existentialist, my 'belief' is that there is much more supporting evidence from history (the Christian Bible), nature, and existence itself for (to support) the existence of God than not. I can succincty enumerate them if you like...then we can go through each one.

(In fact--as you suggest--I will argue that the Atheist belief system is based more on ignorance than not.)

In other words, you are saying that something we do not understand is responsible for something else that we also do not understand. — EricH

Yep, makes a good point to ponder. He/she is basically saying you don't even understand your own conscious existence, so how can you, through logic, deny another's conscious existence (Jesus)?

Is consciousness itself logically possible?

You can use logic to analyze the religious texts of the various religions and point out all the impossible assertions & contradictions in the texts. But you cannot use logic to prove or disprove poetic metaphors. — EricH

I'm a little confused with your reasoning. You are saying you need logic to deconstruct metaphors, analyze written texts, and so forth in order to arrive at your conclusions, yet you're denying it requires conscious existence in order to do so. Can you explain for us?

don't see how you get from natural light, even if it's pure energy, to a superconsciousness people call God — Gregory

Sorry for the piece meal, my internet is buggered up. Consider reading about the Holographic Principle and conscious energy/Biophotons first. Then, in Christianity, consider that God created consciousness through a Being known as Jesus who existed in history. Then, consider the many metaphysical question(s) about conscious existence.

Grace is a substance of sorts that presents God to you. Natural light does no such thing as far as I can see. God might be an energy, rarified or whatever. Or he might be all the energy in the world as Spinoza and Teilhard might put it. Or maybe he never existed? — Gregory

Interesting. You are suggesting grace is 'a substance of sorts that presents God to you'. What is your theory?

the celestial realm is supposed to be filled with God's light, which is grace. I don't see how you get from natural light, even if it's pure energy, to a superconsciousness people call God — Gregory

Let me ask you again, what is grace?

Why can't God be made of energy? — Gregory

Good question, there's no reason why God couldn't be... .

Light is not grace. We are asking for proof of a supernatural order. So you know what that means? — Gregory

Gregory!

I'm not sure you're thinking that through. The newbie contributor was positing that there is no 'higher eternal entity'. And so I replied with the fact that in nature light speed stops time; eternity, timelessness, etc. exists.

Here are a couple more bullet points for you regarding your comment about 'grace' (not sure where that concept even came from, maybe you could explain in your reply).

1. 'Grace' has no Darwinian survival advantages, so what is your point, is 'grace' some sort of metaphysical feature of human consciousness? Please explain what you mean by 'grace'?

2. The Holographic Principle in quantum theory posits consciousness can transmit information through space via Biophotons. Which in turn, has other intriguing implications regarding eternity/speed of light viz Einstein's relativity and black holes, etc..

The world doesn't need more philosophers or academics, it needs more culturally responsible intellectuals. — JerseyFlight

We're confused, what is a "culturally responsible intellectual" a teacher? If it is, and since you denounce academia, it seems to be a contradictory statement from your thesis.

Can you see that it frightens us and depresses us to realize they are not "higher," that they are not "eternal," that they do not correspond to any transcendent realm — JerseyFlight

Are you sure? Consider relatively. At the speed of light, time stops and becomes eternal and timeless. Your point?

agree, these things do exist. You ask, what do they mean? This is a strange question, because you seem to be assuming some extra-dimension to which they correspond? They proceed from man and will die with man. — JerseyFlight

We're talking about the nature of existence. In other words, Metaphysics. Are you not familiar with that?

I agree with sophisticat, Aprokrisis and Seagull. You are making way too many generalizations. It's as if you have some sort of ax to grind, without sufficient justification.

Consider a thesis where you have a definitions index as part of your blueprint, or architectural engineering documents with a definitions page on the drawings. Consider defining:

1.The Elitist
2. The Intellect
3. The Intellectual
4. The Socio-political
5. Academia

What's more, I realize you're new here but unfortunately you've already set some alarming groundwork. You said: " I pay attention to the content of what is being said! In my life as a thinker I have found that most thinkers do the opposite."

Are you sure about that? For instance, because you didn't provide the proper context for what it means to comprehend information or any novel concept as something that might be communicated or taught in say academia, you're suggesting that the student in that case should ignore the Intellectualist teacher since they're "ivory tower".

Are you just purging something?

This is not my assumption. — JerseyFlight

Please share your assumption.

Really, how so?

Let me understand your premises. You are critiquing Platonism/mathematics/abstract language/objective truth's and concepts (and denying its value), yet you use similar objective reasoning to argue whatever it is you're trying to argue. Therefore, you are essentially unknowingly endorsing (said objectivity, mathematics, etc.) that which you have problems with or objections to... ?

Are you folding under pressure already?

Amen, amen! Welcome to TPF — 180 Proof

We'll see how well he'll hold up under my scrutiny. Like you, I hope he doesn't fold under pressure :snicker:

This is a non-sequitur. "rely on objective reasoning" is your own confusion, false premise. Clearly you have an agenda bent in the direction of some form of supernatural idealism. Plato's desire for a spiritual world is not significant, it is psychologically common and primitive. Bottom line is that human's, in general, cannot handle the contingent nature of reality. I challenge you to be a serious thinker and forgo the temptation to retreat into the comfort of idealism. — JerseyFlight

Not sure what you are referring to...are you thinking subjective idealism of some sort?

My point is that if you (or say, an atheist, or LP, etc.) argue that all of life is objectivity, then you would be contradicting yourself. You would for at least two reasons:

1. Part of Mathematics is essentially an abstract metaphysical language that is timeless and objective. Platonism comprises those descriptive elements.
2. Objective reasoning does not, in itself, explain the nature of your existence.

So I would say non-sequite this... how do you reconcile your paradox?

consciousness is not necessary — jorndoe

It is necessary for thought itself.