'Knowledge' of Existence

[gaara4158]

I am not confused at all, you are asserting that the laws of logic are only descriptions of realty...I am saying that they can't be. They are universal and if they were just invented by humans they might not all be the same and that is not possible. You are making claims without any evidence that this is true, in fact, the laws of logic have to be absolute truth and universal to be logical at all.

The laws of logic are nothing more than a set of rules and definitions required for constructing coherent descriptions of reality. They’re not a part of reality itself, they are a product of the way language works. If we didn’t agree that A=A, we couldn’t have a conversation. You could decide I’m talking about octopus mating habits and I couldn’t correct you. The requirement comes from the nature of human language, not some external absolute authority.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The laws of logic are nothing more than a set of rules and definitions required for constructing coherent descriptions of reality. They’re not a part of reality itself, they are a product of the way language works. If we didn’t agree that A=A, we couldn’t have a conversation. You could decide I’m talking about octopus mating habits and I couldn’t correct you. The requirement comes from the nature of human language, not some external absolute authority.

There are different languages, if languages are different why aren't the Laws of Logic?

 

[gaara4158]

There are different languages, if languages are different why aren't the Laws of Logic?

It’s not peculiar to any single language, it’s a part of language itself. No matter what symbols, sounds, or gestures you use to communicate, it doesn’t work unless the laws of identity, non contradiction, and the excluded middle are applied. It’s base assumptions you have to make in order to allow for communication.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I am not confused at all

Yes you are. As evidenced by your continued misconstuance of what I believe.

You keep coming back to the same basic conflation between reality and statements about reality.

Statements about reality - like A=A - evidently derive from a mind.

Reality itself - that which the statements and laws describe - is not evidently derived from a mind.

That is what you are tasked with demonstrating - that reality itself is derived from a mind. No amount of apologetic sleight-of-hand will ever get you out of that burden of proof.

IAnd just to be absolutely clear the laws of logic are not just LABELS. They allow labels to be constructed.

So in your worldview, rather than a thing being itself and 'A=A' being a description of that fact, the statement 'A=A' is actually what causes a thing to be itself. The words themselves give reality permission to behave as it does.

What an absurd, cartoonish existence you propose. I reject it, outright.

And thank you for proving my point - your worldview is incapable of distinguishing between reality and statements about reality.

Statements about reality can not be made without the presuppositions for absolute truth and the universal principals they are founded upon, which without we could make no sense of reality at all.

Correct.

And none of that necessitates the assumption that reality is derived from a supernatural god-mind. That remains a vacuous naked assertion in your part.

You make assumptions about the universe's uniformity, its intelligibility, its order and its purpose.

We both do. All worldviews have to have some axiom as a starting point.

The difference is, you add a completely unnecessary and unwarranted step - a nebulous, all powerful cosmic consciousnes that you just have to trust to not reorder or destroy all of existence on a whim.

I don't. So, my starting point is better.

I can't be sure from your posts how much scrutiny you have taken to determine what you seem to believe.

You can be sure I remain thoroughly unconvinced of the metaphysical claims of all religions, including yours. How bout that.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I would also like responses to the questions I asked in my post which you ignored.

You didn't ask anything I haven't answered two or more times. That's why I distilled repeated questions into one, and gave one large answer.

And I wouldn't go around hurling that accusation, if I were you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It’s not peculiar to any single language, it’s a part of language itself. No matter what symbols, sounds, or gestures you use to communicate, it doesn’t work unless the laws of identity, non contradiction, and the excluded middle are applied. It’s base assumptions you have to make in order to allow for communication.

So you agree that they are invariant, universal and immaterial?

 

[gaara4158]

So you agree that they are invariant, universal and immaterial?

No. They are necessary assumptions for the formulation of coherent ideas, just like the rules of chess are necessary for playing the game of chess. They don’t actually exist, they’re just ideas we adhere to for our own purposes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes you are. As evidenced by your continued misconstuance of what I believe.

You said what you believed was that the Laws of Logic are descriptions of reality. How did I misconstrue that? Tell me what I am not getting right?

You keep coming back to the same basic conflation between reality and statements about reality.

Statements about reality - like A=A - evidently derive from a mind.

Reality itself - that which the statements and laws describe - is not evidently derived from a mind.

Is truth invented by humans? Is truth derived by the mind?

That is what you are tasked with demonstrating - that reality itself is derived from a mind. No amount of apologetic sleight-of-hand will ever get you out of that burden of proof.

You seem so concerned with my motives that you are missing the points being made.

So in your worldview, rather than a thing being itself and 'A=A' being a description of that fact, the statement 'A=A' is actually what causes a thing to be itself. The words themselves give reality permission to behave as it does.

What?

What an absurd, cartoonish existence you propose. I reject it, outright.

It only is absurd by your lack of understanding and cartoonish seems rather extreme.

And thank you for proving my point - your worldview is incapable of distinguishing between reality and statements about reality.

Straw man.

Correct.

And none of that necessitates the assumption that reality is derived from a supernatural god-mind. That remains a vacuous naked assertion in your part.

Yet, you assume that abstract, invariant, universal, immaterial laws are somehow invented by humans. Abstract, invariant, universal, immaterial laws are not cohesive or coherent under an atheist worldview. I ask you again, is truth just a description of reality? Or do we discover truth?

We both do. All worldviews have to have some axiom as a starting point.

The difference is, you add a completely unnecessary and unwarranted step - a nebulous, all powerful cosmic consciousnes that you just have to trust to not reorder or destroy all of existence on a whim.

I don't. So, my starting point is better.

I've said this is not true to my position but you continue to bring it up.

You can be sure I remain thoroughly unconvinced of the metaphysical claims of all religions, including yours. How bout that.

You think that surprises me?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. They are necessary assumptions for the formulation of coherent ideas, just like the rules of chess are necessary for playing the game of chess. They don’t actually exist, they’re just ideas we adhere to for our own purposes.

Ok, so if they don't actually exist, who decided we would adhere to them and how did we arrive at the same ones universally?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You didn't ask anything I haven't answered two or more times. That's why I distilled repeated questions into one, and gave one large answer.

And I wouldn't go around hurling that accusation, if I were you.

No, you haven't answered them. Humor me.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You said what you believed was that the Laws of Logic are descriptions of reality. How did I misconstrue that?

Because you keep going on to argue as if I believe reality itself is mutable, rather than just the laws that are derived from it. Again and again and again and again. And again.

Is truth invented by humans?

No.

Is truth derived by the mind?

No. That's what you believe - that reality, and by extension, truth, necessarily derives from a mind.

Are you going to get around to demonstrating that necessity any time soon?

You seem so concerned with my motives that you are missing the points being made.

The point is, you set out from word one with the assertion that reality must necessarily derive from a mind. You have singularly failed to demonstrate that in any meaningful fashion whatsoever.

It only is absurd by your lack of understanding and cartoonish seems rather extreme.

Straw man.

There are two possibilities in this discourse for the relationship between reality and statements about reality, i.e. laws.

Scenario 1 - Reality exists as it is, and laws are descriptions of its features and behavior. In this scenario, all minds could disappear tomorrow, and reality would continue to operate exactly as it does. This is what I believe.

Scenario 2 - The laws, that is the descriptions themselves, hold reality in check. The statement 'A=A' actually causes things to be themselves. In this scenario, if all minds disappeared tomorrow, the universe would plunge into nonsensical chaos.

Scenario 2 is an absurd, cartoon universe, where words and concepts have power over their objects.

You said, 'the laws of logic are not just LABELS. They allow labels to be constructed', which sounds to me like scenario 2.

But then you said no, that's a straw man.

So, please be clear - what is the hierarchy, in your worldview, between reality and statements about reality?

Yet, you assume that abstract, invariant, universal, immaterial laws are somehow invented by humans. Abstract, invariant, universal, immaterial laws are not cohesive or coherent under an atheist worldview.

Abstract and immaterial, yes. Invariant and universal, NO.

All laws that have ever been dreamed of in any form of logic, every scientific formula from every field of study, the entire wealth of human knowledge - all of it could disappear tomorrow and the universe would continue to operate exactly as it does right now.

Reality is invariant and universal. Statements about reality are not.

My worldview distinguishes between the two. Yours, by all appearances, does not. Which would explain why this is is literally what... the eighth time I've explained this?

I ask you again, is truth just a description of reality?

Truth is that which comports with reality.

Or do we discover truth?

What do you mean, 'or'? That's a bizarre dichotomy.

Anyway, yes. It is accurate to say at least some types of truth, like empirical truths, are discovered, and there are other means of gleaning other types of truth.

'Revelation' isn't one of them.

I've said this is not true to my position but you continue to bring it up.

You are welcome to say that. I think a complete and utter lack of any reliable means of predicting the mind of Yahweh is true of the theist position, whether you hold to it or not. It's one of the many reasons I don't believe.

But, that's me. Suppose I just take the spirit of what you're saying here. To that I say, come again?

You're saying it's unfair to ascribe positions to people which they don't actually hold?

Look in the mirror and say that to yourself ten times. Very slowly. Then come back to me.

No, you haven't answered them.

Yes I have. More times than I typically have patience for.

You, on the other hand, still have not answered why reality must necessarily derive from a mind. Are you going to do that soon?

Humor me.

No.

 

[gaara4158]

Ok, so if they don't actually exist, who decided we would adhere to them and how did we arrive at the same ones universally?

That's kind of an interesting question. The development of language in humans is a fascinating field of study. The concept of definitions is probably just intuitive. If you're really looking for answers, I would encourage you to look up what kind of research has been done as to the origin of logical reasoning.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

For those vanishingly few who might still be reading along, this video contains a wonderfully concise illustration of the point I have been making, from 7:53 to 8:30.

 

[cvanwey]

I am not asking you to disprove anything. I looking at both of our worldviews or at least trying to. I am beginning to think that maybe you don't want to present yours because you might have some doubts about it?

Again, this is where I'm seeing a grave disconnect. There are many conclusions to where I feel I do not have enough data, information, direct evidence, or intelligence to make or assert a conclusion. As stated many times now, I empathize with many whom attempt to account for a 'driving force' to all such things in which many assert. In regards to the others/you, whom conclude or assert a position (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc), I am instead in the camp of doubt, skepticism, or simply state "I really don't know".

The fact that (you) label yourself a Christian tells me you automatically have made such conclusions. I, on the other hand, happily admit there exists many things I cannot make such assertions about.

And just because I do not know the answer to something, does not mean I cannot rule out the assertion of some others.

Simple example (and please do not read too deep into this one, but I feel it drives my point):

It's 1960, and someone tells me "Tina Turner" is singing on a demo track. I may not know whom is actually singing the song, but can still confidently conclude that Tina is not the singer. Hence, without enough data, I might not be able to 'disprove' the assertion of 'Tina Turner'.

This is kinda how I view what is going on here. You are asserting a conclusion (Christianity, in all of it's wide varieties). Where I'm stating, in regards to a 'driving force' I don't know, but can safety conclude that your asserted position does not align with my reality.

I hope this helps a bit?

I find most atheists don't understand that there is still unfulfilled prophecy and double prophecies and sometimes mistakenly think the prophecy is unfulfilled in the past.

Again, in regards to such 'Bible prophecy', my 'asserted conclusion' is simple. I find many people, whom refer to any such book of prophecy, accept the (vague) hits while ignoring the (many) misses. Christianity definitely falls within this category. So until you cite a very specific 'claimed fulfilled prophecy', this is my concluded 'asserted position', for this particular topic, thus far

Sorry?

See directly above.

Really? Why? You do realize that all modern humans can be traced to only one female ancestor? We also know that Cain was concerned for his safety by other people...where did Cain's wife come from? One possibility in my opinion and which I think has scriptural support is found in Genesis two. We see in Genesis two that the Bible states again creating man and woman but this time, God gave man/women a living soul. I think that we see people that were not the same as the people with living souls. Genesis two talks about the Spiritual man/woman coming into existence.

I feel this is where our assumptions/conclusions/ideas drastically diverge or part ways. I gladly state that I am NOT qualified to assert a conclusion, but defer my 'trust' in the many whom have devoted their careers to such study. In regards to 'Mitochondrial Eve' (in regards to 'modern humans can be traced to only one female ancestor'), please watch the 6 minute video. And no, I am not a Richard Dawkins fan on many points :

If the above assertion is true, on any level, then Genesis' assertion is patently false. Because as I eluded to prior, the Bible asserts that humans were first created in present human form. And the 'creationist' would seem to have NO choice, but to reject macro evolution. If the above video is even slightly true, the origin/beginning of human ancestry does not follow such Biblical claims. And since you stated you are also a fan of science, I would then also assume you accept true scientific theory???? And since evolution is a scientific theory, this might be where the conversation could get shaky... Meaning, you have adopted a possible a priori to Adam and Eve as humans. This claims overtly rejects macro evolution - (a scientific theory).

This is one of the many reasons why I am severely in the camp of major doubt to many claims from 'Genesis'

Like I said before, There was a time when Science was in opposition to any liquid form being in the beginning of the universe but that was found to be wrong and aligned with the Bible.

https://www.seeker.com/in-the-beginning-the-universe-was-a-liquid-1765141247.html

There was a time when Science was in opposition to any water being on early earth. Now Science aligns with the Bible.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/fossil-discoveries-challenge-ideas-about-earths-start-20180122/

What Science says today can change by new discoveries and has many time as shown in the examples above.

Yes, and as I stated prior, even a few decades ago, scientists thought the earth was perfectly round. So this must also mean, that since scientific conclusions change, then the original assertion is correct - (the world is flat). Meaning, because we may still not know the absolute concluded spherical shape, we can then throw our hands up in the air, drop all science, and conclude the world is flat, as eluded to from both theists and scientists a while back.

In regards to your above links, what specific Bible verses do you feel directly connect? Are they specific? Do they hint anything specific from these cited articles noted? Or, are they instead kind of vague? Meaning, no real specific data to correlate between a verse(s) and such articles of conclusion? Is it possible such connections are instead a post hoc conclusion? Also, what happens if an alternate conclusion later no longer supports the Bible verse(s) you are them connecting to? Since you gladly admit that science changes, why even reference a scientific conclusion back to Bible prophecy at all???

This is why I am a doubter/skeptic to many things.... If we do not know yet, it's okay to state, we do not know yet. Or, may never know.

This shows you are the one not understanding. I am not giving you the burden to disprove me. I want your position on the things I listed.

Oh, I understand. You want me to make an assertion.

(Which will also ultimately oppose your concluded position, since I am a skeptic to your specific asserted and concluded position).

As I stated in the beginning response in this post, I am in the camp of doubt and skepticism to many things (theism and science alike). Until (I feel) the evidence is overwhelming to reach any/all conclusions, I do not assert a conclusion.

Hence, there exists many conclusions I may never, or have yet to draw.

I never claimed 'irreducible complexity'. You continue to make unfound assumptions.

Then why not instead just refer to something like RNA, a single celled organism, or other more undefined or 'simplistic' models? Why specifically present such a specific bacteria? Again, I gladly state I do not know the 'driving force' to start such processes at all. The Bacteria flagella is way overkill, and instead seems to represent a specific viewpoint. And 'irreducible complexity' seems to be one of the inferred components to such arguments...

You are making a straw man...albeit perhaps unintentional.

If you are a Christian, then you do conclude creationism, and Yahweh as the 'driving force.' If not, please advise accordingly.

Not my claim.

You are a Christian, so I know your claim(s) I am a skeptic. So in such matters, I do not have one.

Straw man.

Nope. If you did not assert a conclusion to the origin, then I would agree with you

NOPE.

Then please stop asking me for my conclusion and worldview for the origin of anything. I don't know. And neither do you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

For those vanishingly few who might still be reading along, this video contains a wonderfully concise illustration of the point I have been making, from 7:53 to 8:30.

TheraminTrees is always good.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because you keep going on to argue as if I believe reality itself is mutable, rather than just the laws that are derived from it. Again and again and again and again. And again.

I don't believe you believe that reality itself is mutable. You have said the exact opposite, in fact, if I were to believe that you believe reality is mutable after you making a statement of the exact opposite I would be defying logic. You can defy logic if you want to in making illogical statements but the necessity of logic will not allow it. It would go against the absolute truth of logic which can't be done. That is why claiming that the laws of logic are mutable is simply and unequivocally wrong. They can not be only descriptions because that would make them mutable and they are immutable. You simply can not not use logic. The laws of logic are necessary truths. In that they are truths one can not escape them. Truth as you yourself have said, is not invented by humans. The laws of logic are necessary truths, thus, can not be invented by humans. Conventions or rules invented by humans can be changed, the laws of logic can not be changed as they are necessary truths.

No.



No. That's what you believe - that reality, and by extension, truth, necessarily derives from a mind.

Are you going to get around to demonstrating that necessity any time soon?

What I believe is that the laws of logic are necessary truths, truths that we can not escape if we think at all; I believe that this truth is grounded in a perfect being with a perfect nature from which truth and reality find their origin. The Laws of Logic are necessary truths that are immaterial, invariant/immutable, and universal. If necessary truths are not material but conceptual and are not inventions/conventions of humans they by necessity must have a necessary mind to exist. Reality itself has no mind, so reality can not determine the necessary truth required for the laws of logic to exist.

The point is, you set out from word one with the assertion that reality must necessarily derive from a mind. You have singularly failed to demonstrate that in any meaningful fashion whatsoever.

I don't doubt that you don't understand, you have made that abundantly clear, and in misunderstanding the argument you would perceive that I have failed.

There are two possibilities in this discourse for the relationship between reality and statements about reality, i.e. laws.

Scenario 1 - Reality exists as it is, and laws are descriptions of its features and behavior. In this scenario, all minds could disappear tomorrow, and reality would continue to operate exactly as it does. This is what I believe.

Yes, that is what you believe and I have no problem understanding that is what you BELIEVE. What you believe is not completely wrong. Reality does exist and the laws do describe that a rock is a rock, that a rock is a rock and not a rock at the same time. But the bedrock of that description is the underlying necessary truth of that statement. Your mind/human mind can not process the data of reality without logic. It wouldn't matter if reality says that a rock is a rock if your mind couldn't correlate that reality without the necessary logic to do so.

Scenario 2 - The laws, that is the descriptions themselves, hold reality in check. The statement 'A=A' actually causes things to be themselves. In this scenario, if all minds disappeared tomorrow, the universe would plunge into nonsensical chaos.

Scenario 2 is an absurd, cartoon universe, where words and concepts have power over their objects.

And this is the strawman. I never claimed anything like that.

You said, 'the laws of logic are not just LABELS. They allow labels to be constructed', which sounds to me like scenario 2.

But then you said no, that's a straw man.

Exactly, you are not understanding my argument.

So, please be clear - what is the hierarchy, in your worldview, between reality and statements about reality?

Reality does exist and the laws do describe that a rock is a rock, that a rock is a rock and not a rock at the same time. But the bedrock of that description is the underlying necessary truth of that statement. Your mind/human mind can not process the data of reality without logic. It wouldn't matter if reality says that a rock is a rock if your mind couldn't correlate that reality without the necessary logic to do so.

Abstract and immaterial, yes. Invariant and universal, NO.

Then you are wrong. They could not be mutable and they must be universal. If they were mutable a rock could be a tree if a group of humans determined that to be the rule. Yes, it would be illogical and that is why they can't be mutable and must be universal.

All laws that have ever been dreamed of in any form of logic, every scientific formula from every field of study, the entire wealth of human knowledge - all of it could disappear tomorrow and the universe would continue to operate exactly as it does right now.

I agree. Truth would exist but truth is not invented by humans and neither are the laws of logic. The laws of logic are necessary truths.

[/Quote]Reality is invariant and universal. Statements about reality are not.[/Quote]
The logic behind the statements are. No one can make a statement without the laws of logic.

My worldview distinguishes between the two. Yours, by all appearances, does not. Which would explain why this is is literally what... the eighth time I've explained this?

Because when asked what an elephant is and you are blindfolded and touching just the trunk, you say it is a snake. You are not understanding the full argument, you are wrong about my position and you are wrong about some of your assumptions.

Truth is that which comports with reality.

Yes, but to know any truth or anything about reality you HAVE to start with logic.

What do you mean, 'or'? That's a bizarre dichotomy.

Why?

Anyway, yes. It is accurate to say at least some types of truth, like empirical truths, are discovered, and there are other means of gleaning other types of truth.

There are types of truth? Like what types are you referring to?

'Revelation' isn't one of them.

Really? And how do you know that revelation isn't one of them?

You are welcome to say that. I think a complete and utter lack of any reliable means of predicting the mind of Yahweh is true of the theist position, whether you hold to it or not. It's one of the many reasons I don't believe.

We can't predict the mind of Yahweh...true. We can't know His thoughts but He has made known what His plans are for the universe. So we can know that the universe will stay the same up to the point of its end. That end has certain sequences that we are to watch for.

But, that's me. Suppose I just take the spirit of what you're saying here. To that I say, come again?

You're saying it's unfair to ascribe positions to people which they don't actually hold?

Look in the mirror and say that to yourself ten times. Very slowly. Then come back to me.

I haven't ascribed any position to you other than your estimation of your view. You believe that reality is immutable and universal. You believe that the laws of logic are invented by humans to describe reality. You believe truth is not invented by humans. You believe that my position is cartoonish. Now where have I ascribed incorrectly your position?

You, on the other hand, still have not answered why reality must necessarily derive from a mind. Are you going to do that soon?

I find that the existence of our reality or the universe and our existence is most coherent and cohesive in the Christian worldview. I believe that reality must derive from a mind from the evidence the universe gives us. The universe speaks of intelligence. It is derived by mathematical structure, it is governed by laws, it appears designed and mankind has the ability to understand it. I find no other worldview that explains what we see of reality better.



No.[/QUOTE]OK.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't believe you believe that reality itself is mutable. You have said the exact opposite, in fact, if I were to believe that you believe reality is mutable after you making a statement of the exact opposite I would be defying logic. You can defy logic if you want to in making illogical statements but the necessity of logic will not allow it. It would go against the absolute truth of logic which can't be done. That is why claiming that the laws of logic are mutable is simply and unequivocally wrong. They can not be only descriptions because that would make them mutable and they are immutable. You simply can not not use logic. The laws of logic are necessary truths. In that they are truths one can not escape them. Truth as you yourself have said, is not invented by humans. The laws of logic are necessary truths, thus, can not be invented by humans. Conventions or rules invented by humans can be changed, the laws of logic can not be changed as they are necessary truths.




What I believe is that the laws of logic are necessary truths, truths that we can not escape if we think at all; I believe that this truth is grounded in a perfect being with a perfect nature from which truth and reality find their origin. The Laws of Logic are necessary truths that are immaterial, invariant/immutable, and universal. If necessary truths are not material but conceptual and are not inventions/conventions of humans they by necessity must have a necessary mind to exist. Reality itself has no mind, so reality can not determine the necessary truth required for the laws of logic to exist.




I don't doubt that you don't understand, you have made that abundantly clear, and in misunderstanding the argument you would perceive that I have failed.




Yes, that is what you believe and I have no problem understanding that is what you BELIEVE. What you believe is not completely wrong. Reality does exist and the laws do describe that a rock is a rock, that a rock is a rock and not a rock at the same time. But the bedrock of that description is the underlying necessary truth of that statement. Your mind/human mind can not process the data of reality without logic. It wouldn't matter if reality says that a rock is a rock if your mind couldn't correlate that reality without the necessary logic to do so.


And this is the strawman. I never claimed anything like that.


Exactly, you are not understanding my argument.


Reality does exist and the laws do describe that a rock is a rock, that a rock is a rock and not a rock at the same time. But the bedrock of that description is the underlying necessary truth of that statement. Your mind/human mind can not process the data of reality without logic. It wouldn't matter if reality says that a rock is a rock if your mind couldn't correlate that reality without the necessary logic to do so.




Then you are wrong. They could not be mutable and they must be universal. If they were mutable a rock could be a tree if a group of humans determined that to be the rule. Yes, it would be illogical and that is why they can't be mutable and must be universal.


I agree. Truth would exist but truth is not invented by humans and neither are the laws of logic. The laws of logic are necessary truths.

This is what I find I'm starting to hate about long posts... They start to stray off topic. It's natural. We all follow each other's topic organically.

I'm going to try and steer this back a bit....

If myself, along with @Eight Foot Manchild had knowledge of existence to the one and only driving force, in which you assert is the origin of all such topics, we would not be having any of these discussions, period.

We would then instead only be arguing for which Christian denomination is the correct Christian denomination of reality (whether we wanted to follow it or not is another story).

So I am going to place this to you very simply....

1. How does ANY of these observations point directly and ONLY to your asserted conclusion of Yahweh specifically, as opposed to alternate conclusions?.?.?.?.

2. Where is this one and only God actually revealing himself to us doubters and skeptics, in which we are not drawing the direct connection?

3. Philosophy has been around for 1,000's of years, and are still on the mere topic of existence to any god(s) at all. Don't you find this odd?

Thnx

 

[Oncedeceived]

For those vanishingly few who might still be reading along, this video contains a wonderfully concise illustration of the point I have been making, from 7:53 to 8:30.

The assertions in this are many, that is for sure. Now getting to the 7:53 to 8:30 assertions. Descriptions and labels, reality, existence all have their grounding in logic. Without logic we can not conceptualize reality, existence and could not describe nor label reality. Logic is the necessary first principal that is a priori to conceptualizing anything.

 

[cvanwey]

The assertions in this are many, that is for sure. Now getting to the 7:53 to 8:30 assertions. Descriptions and labels, reality, existence all have their grounding in logic. Without logic we can not conceptualize reality, existence and could not describe nor label reality. Logic is the necessary first principal that is a priori to conceptualizing anything.

Proof for Yahweh specifically please. The direct knowledge of His direct existence to all of this please? Otherwise, we can all speculate and ponder until the cows come home

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is what I find I'm starting to hate about long posts... They start to stray off topic. It's natural. We all follow each other's topic organically.

I'm going to try and steer this back a bit....

If myself, along with @Eight Foot Manchild had knowledge of existence to the one and only driving force, in which you assert is the origin of all such topics, we would not be having any of these discussions, period.

I will go back and answer your last post but I will respond to this one first. Yes, if you had knowledge of God's existence you would not be on the side of the discussion you are now. Obviously. That we are having this discussion and you and Eight Foot Manchild are missing is that we could not even have this discussion if it were not for the laws of logic. As far as knowledge (which again is grounded in logic) of God, true knowledge can be acquired and many people hold knowledge that others do not hold at one time or another. The fact that you and EF Manchild don't have this knowledge is not validation of that knowledge not being actual or true. It just means you don't have that knowledge.

We would then instead only be arguing for which Christian denomination is the correct Christian denomination of reality (whether we wanted to follow it or not is another story).

So I am going to place this to you very simply....

1. How does ANY of these observations point directly and ONLY to your asserted conclusion of Yahweh specifically, as opposed to alternate conclusions?.?.?.?.

2. Where is this one and only God actually revealing himself to us doubters and skeptics, in which we are not drawing the direct connection?

3. Philosophy has been around for 1,000's of years, and are still on the mere topic of existence to any god(s) at all. Don't you find this odd?

Thnx

All denominations of Christianity have the same bedrock affirmations. That Jesus Christ is the son of God, that He died for our sins and that He rose again. That's it. That is the foundation for Christianity. Anything other than that has to be argued with Scripture as to if it is in keeping with the Theology of Christianity. There are always differing ideas and beliefs in all things.
1. You take the opposing alternate conclusions and see if they are cohesive and coherent within that worldview. Does reality reflect what that worldview proclaims?
2. We know that hundreds of millions of doubters and skeptics have come to have knowledge of God. The fact that you and EF Manchild have not does not change the fact that hundreds of millions have.
3. No, not at all. God wants us to have that choice. Man will always make up excuses and follow down other paths if they don't want God.