God, Atheism and Problems of Philosophy

[OntoLogos]

Man cannot be the ground for epistemology:

Observed q1, q2, ...,

Cannot without omniscience yield knowledge of:

q(infinite)

God is the infinite base and fountainhead for knowledge and truth.

[OntoLogos]

Empiricism fails:

1. All observed r's have been t's.

2. r, NOT yet observed, may or may not be a t.

Therefore,

3. Therefore it is illogical to posit sense observation as the ground for one's world view.

[youmeandsomeknives]

'What is the difference of indication of soul between humans and for example an intelligent creature sensing ultrasound the way bats do? None that I can see.'

Really?

Bats have souls do they? They can enter heaven? Okay, I think you may have some issues to discuss with your christian friends about that. After all, we're the only creatures capable of entering into the kingdom of heaven.

[OntoLogos]

• T (Laws of Thought) have the property U (Universality)

• For All rational thought requires T, if T has the property U. And L (Logos of God) has the property U

Conclusion:

• If L has the property U, it can account for T.

• T is necessary for I (Intelligibility).

• I, hence L.

[OntoLogos]

What supreme ruling proto-supposition can the non-theist posit to account for all theoretical thought? God is the chief ruling element of my rational paradigm and He can account for all the necessities and universals required for the Laws of Thought and thus intelligibility.

[OntoLogos]

Altruistic notions or actions require a personal ground. Symbol wielding discourse requires the Law of Identity, which requires God. Physical Reductionism must reject the Logos which is what is required for all Rational thinking and communication. Thus physical reductionism is self-defeating. The Logos of God lays out the infinite

groundwork for thought and dialog.

[OntoLogos]

My claims and arguments ask for the preconditions of empirical experience and the laws of Thought. To ask for empirical evidence for such an argument is to show the very ignorance of Laws of Thought you hope others will ascribe to us if you just say enough times.

[youmeandsomeknives]

Empirical evidence is something which you cannot supply, no matter what terms you couch your answer in.

[anthonymilessee]

Rain rain go away,

Come again another day.

Hume's Induction mustn't stay;

Rain, rain, go to Spain,

For you may never show again!

Atheism fails to account for a day

Just ask Russell, Hume or McKay,

Causation & Logic: atheism must slay

Nope, theism gives preconditions to save the day.

[deu64]

Those who deny non-material forms, land concepts must be self-referential, therefore the most that they can claim is some P is Q and some P may not be R, and D is not some of the time. Materialists cannot justify universal and certain claims.

[deu64]

Everything presupposes God, or as Censeo admits, nothing, and all is an illusion.

[youmeandsomeknives]

That sounds like the beliefs of the Krisna faith.

[deu64]

The Laws of logic are not dependent on glands and gristle, but have necessity and universality. These attributes require Christianity to ground them. Being an ardent defender of physical reductionism is a rationally bootless enterprise and self-defeating, for it is required to employ the non-material Laws of logic. God alone supplies the necessary ground.

[deu64]

The laws of Logic = Q are necessary but

not sufficient for

true knowledge of our world = R.

R require fixed ethics, objective truth, fixed personality, other minds, relations between propositions & obj. world, certainty.

R presupposes God=G through G's aseity, omniscience, etc. thus

G supplies the necessary preconditions for R.

God's existence is absolutely certain.

[Censeo]

We can't prove our knowledge is objective since we rest knowledge upon axioms. The fact that science and moral structures crash when mixed suggest that we do not have access to objectivity. I avoid mixing them and cherish my inconsistency. This leads me far from nihilism (knowing nothing) and theism (think I know most stuff)

[deu64]

censeo's main epistemic problem is he presupposes his view and marshals his many, not all, aspects of his disputations without justification, just mere assumption.

Since you "cherish your inconsistency", you should repent, or get off the playing field, here on this ball-field we placard truth, warrant, and logical justifications. We as Christians cherish universals, necessities, changeless forms, truth and the Laws of logic.

[Censeo]

Consistency within a structure is always good, but no structure take all of the aspects of this universe into account at the same time, thus every structure of knowledge is an incomplete model.

Any ontological argument don't prove Jesus, but it proves foundation. The aspects you or Muslims or any other religion does is pure guessing, not needed from the arguments case.

[anthonymilessee]

if the atheists posit that all is meaningless, the assertion is self-refuting, for that statement would be meaningless.

hence there must be meaning.

if God is not the ground for the laws of logic, what universal unchanging foundation is there?

[Censeo]

the grounds for meaning and purpose is intention and/or value. The ultimate foundation(s) of these are X (unknown) cause as soon as you establish proportions to X you give it proportions it doesn't have to have for the cause. When you say X is God I assume you have given yourself knowledge of some proportions of X.

[deu64]

censeo stated "...intention/value: The ultimate foundation(s) of these are (unknown)..."

That assertion contains within itself the grounds to reject it. For you know that about that unknowable, ergo it's self-refuting as is atheism.

[Censeo]

Know what about the unknowable?

[youmeandsomeknives]

What about the unknowable? Can you, without reference to a dubious text confirm, or deny such a posibility exists?

[Censeo]

Sorry, the posibility of what? A God? I don't know... tell me what a God is first so I have something to work with. Does it have to think despite there being time cause God made it up by his thinking? I guess it is as possible as a round square. First you have to explain what it is, and as soon as it can be explained and understood in the mind, it is always possible that it could be like that from a human perspective.

[youmeandsomeknives]

Not quite.

Unknowable - Impossible to know.

That simple. It's something which cannot in any way be learned, or understood.

Such a concept defies explaination (reasonable explaination) by it's very nature, or it is not unknowable.

Also, please give me an example of a self-aware perspective which is known to be other than human - againg without reference to an unsubstatiable source.

[Censeo]

Oh, I didn't mean "unknowable" to mean beyond cognition (unthinkable, impossible to grasp). We speculate in metaphysics nature, and can get a grasp of what we guess... But it is guesswork and never proven by empirical methods.

A Gods perspective is different from a human. Divinity in nature is a human perspective out of emotive thankfulness to a God. No God is divine without the outside self worship. Or explain divine in that matter to convince me to think different here.

[youmeandsomeknives]

Divine - of and relating to a deity/divine power such as a god, or some other revered supernatural force. This heavily relies on the presence of belief, thus is moot here. It is not required to disprove the existence of something which displays no valid evidence to suggest it exists. It is required that evidence be brought to suggest that it does before that item may be considered worthy of disproving.

[Censeo]

"Divine - of and relating to a deity/divine power" Self referential explenation. It is not a deity if it doesn't contain divinity.

"This heavily relies on the presence of belief" That I think you got right. The word contain emotive assertions... Like honorable. Would someone be honorable in and by itself, without anyone recognizing it? Or divine?

[Censeo]

An intelligence with the senses of a bat would also not have a human perspective. It would grasp ultrasound, not only by its frequency, but would also grasp it on a qualia merit. Seeing it, hearing it, or something else.

[youmeandsomeknives]

And your source for this bat-man?

You yourself are approaching this arguement from a human perspective. It's absurd to assume an understanding of the nature of an unknowable entity from such a standpoint whatever the context of your choice of words.

[Censeo]

see reply I did above, by misstake replying to my own post.

[Censeo]

I'm only speculating that their sense is not incompatible with intelligence. Dogs have eyes and vision, without being intelligent. This does not mean you must be unintelligent to have vision.

[youmeandsomeknives]

No, you replied to my reply after I gave both responses.

You were trying to claim that a bat was self-aware. That's against god isn't it as it indicates the presence of a soul doesn't it?

You realise that the timing of your response is logged after your name don't you?

[Censeo]

"You were trying to claim that a bat was self-aware" No, I never did try that, and I don't believe Bats are self aware.

"That's against god isn't it as it indicates the presence of a soul doesn't it?" What is the difference of indication of soul between humans and for example an intelligent creature sensing ultrasound the way bats do? None that I can see.

[anthonymilessee]

you are presupposing- intelligibility communication your ongoing personhood other minds moral law law of identity law of non-C induction a unified web for particulars and that's just for starters and all the above presupposes God

[Censeo]

It presupposes a non contingent metaphysical reality, which didn't came to be. It presupposes a non reachable foundation in other words (X). It doesn't presuppose Jesus being son of X, X listening to your thoughts or X being outside universe altering X with a mind of its own.

[Censeo]

sorry, change last X to reality instead :/

[deu64]

Empty stipulation from the non-Christian and mere assertions based on your un-argued presuppositions all which necessitate God's existence.

[Censeo]

How can it be empty, when it agrees with there being eternal foundation and then point out the mere fact that this argument don't prove Christianity? If you didn't have the Bible, this argument wouldn't make you believe in the trinity. If it does I need your convincing elaboration :)

[OntoLogos]

The Non-theists have no basis within their own rational system to even account for itself. Non-theism fails to account for the Laws of Thought and this fatal inconsistency undercuts itself.

Many non-theists deny the notion of objective truth, and yet have no meta-theory that can hold that notion up or sustain it

[Censeo]

"Many non-theists deny the notion of objective truth, and yet have no meta-theory that can hold that notion up or sustain it"

The reasoning I use to deny the notion of metaphysical knowledge of this reality is because we belong in reality. We do not need to know the heritage of reality to justify epistemology, thus we only admit that we start with small truths we take at face value and then make structures.

[OntoLogos]

If one rejects God and affirms that chance has equal rights and equal sway with the Law of Contradiction & the Law of Identity, then one commits rational suicide.

If everything is by chance acting on matter and motion, no manner of assertion on the future can be justified.

[Censeo]

Reality don't form the metaphysics. It is the other way around. God is divine, and I do not see divinity able to be anything else than astonishing force, which makes no force divine without amazement in the beholder of experiencing the force. Thus, God needs believers to exist, and cannot be called a God by any definition of its metaphysical nature alone. Metaphysical nature of course is a foundation for identity, logic etcetera, but divinity is inserted in this by mankind.

[OntoLogos]

Non-theists: If theism is not the rational flooring for the Laws of Thought, please posit that which is the foundation for the universal and invariant Laws of Thought.

[Censeo]

I am not believing in any available God of any church or religion, and I prefer not to know where my reasoning comes from from these far fetched presumptions. I rather reach knowledge from small presumptions and models from what I hope is reason. From the bottom of nothing up rather than from the top of all down. We are small and our knowledge will be grander if we acknowledge it.

[OntoLogos]

It's not so much madness, but self-deception for one to deny theism and affirm a conceptual scheme that rests on the shifting tides of the cosmos in constant flux. Perpetual flux has not the capacity to account for the invariant Laws of Thought. Theism alone offers an invariant rational base for its conceptual web.

[MikeSarno]

Excellent video! 5/5 Keep up the good work!

[UniversalAtheist]

you like to talk with big words, to impress yourself, obviously, but in the end, you are a very ignorant person. I feel bad, that you are not able to use your brain to see that there is no "god'

[Censeo]

You seem to know very much about the posters character from the reasoning in the video. That is awesome! I wish I was as clever as you are. I myself have not the capacity to find such conclusions and could only address the topic at hand.

[UniversalAtheist]

I wish you were as clever as me.. but, too bad you are not

[Censeo]

Yes, I wish that I was too. I guess I have to leave all the Ad hominem arguments to the bright lads!

[UniversalAtheist]

huh, what do you mean??? I guess you are just a f*cking genius

[OntoLogos]

This site isn't for uneducated non-theists who are asleep at the wheel of their studies, if the vocabulary is too grand, go to the atheist fluff sites and worship Hitchens and Dawkins, they dumb thing down so low that they remove the only rational ground available.

[UniversalAtheist]

when are you going to wake up and realize that it is so easy to destroy dumb theists like you, because you just don't get it

[Censeo]

You are so clever. Again you could establish dumbness of a person by a single post on youtube! I admire you!

[UniversalAtheist]

sorry but you will always be the biggest clueless one

[Censeo]

Ah, and since I always will be, you do not give information (arguments) so that I will get it. Funny though you think I'm the biggest clueless since I am an atheist.

[deu64]

Christian theism offers certain solutions for the problems of: 1. Infinites w/i a finite motion 2. Why all things have a 1/many makeup 3. Perfect Forms in an imperfect world 4. Fixed absolute moral laws 5. concepts, forms & other non-material universals 6. other minds 7. Fixed personhood 8. Hume's problem of Induction 9. Gettier Problem God supplies all the epistemic necessities for all these issues. God must exist.

[OntoLogos]

Theism solves the sundry problems of philosophy. But non-theism remains in an epistemological crisis as it stumbles time after time in it's embrace of irrationalism and self-deception.

[deu64]

all inductive and all empirical arguments are at the core circular. Small and undermining circulars.