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

[M.D. Rawlings]

I can teach you that God is not provable, Einstein.

Well, first, your concession that you wasted our time with a cognitive error that you read into my post is duly noted.

As for "not provable"? Fine. Have at it. And while you're at, I'll teach you a thing or two about stuff you've never considered.

 

[G.T.]

I can teach you that God is not provable, Einstein.

Well, first, your concession that you wasted our time with a cognitive error that you read into my post is duly noted.

As for "not provable"? Fine. Have it. And while you're at, I'll teach you a thing or two about things you've never considered.

Shaddup, you bloviate you do not prove or show.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

link? ^




God's existence in the minds and hearts of the vast majority of human beings on this planet is undeniable.

Therefore, God exists, even if only as an inspiration...

Under that rationale Superman "exists" too.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I can teach you that God is not provable, Einstein.

Well, first, your concession that you wasted our time with a cognitive error that you read into my post is duly noted.

As for "not provable"? Fine. Have it. And while you're at, I'll teach you a thing or two about things you've never considered.

Shaddup, you bloviate you do not prove or show.

I just proved that you boorishly bloviated about something that had nothing to do with what I wrote, Einstein. You forgot about that already? Gee wiz.

Let's review that, Mr. Short Attention Span:

You're confused. I wrote: they can't explain HOW it's possible for something to come from nothing. YOU can't explain HOW something could come from nothing. So all your babble has nothing to do with the something I said, does it, Einstein? —M.D. Rawlings​

What else did I prove that you either didn't understand or forgot about. LOL!

 

[G.T.]

I can teach you that God is not provable, Einstein.

Well, first, your concession that you wasted our time with a cognitive error that you read into my post is duly noted.

As for "not provable"? Fine. Have it. And while you're at, I'll teach you a thing or two about things you've never considered.

Shaddup, you bloviate you do not prove or show.

I just proved that you boorishly bloviated about something that had nothing to do with what I wrote, Einstein. You forgot about that already? Gee wiz.

Let's review that, Mr. Short Attention Span:

You're confused. I wrote: they can't explain HOW it's possible for something to come from nothing. YOU can't explain HOW something could come from nothing. So all your babble has nothing to do with the something I said, does it, Einstein? —M.D. Rawlings​

What else did I prove that you either didn't understand or forgot about. LOL!

This post, is a waste of bandwidth. Congrats, wannabe.

 

[Valerie]

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

link? ^




God's existence in the minds and hearts of the vast majority of human beings on this planet is undeniable.

Therefore, God exists, even if only as an inspiration...

Under that rationale Superman "exists" too.

similar rationale, but not exactly... can you prove that superman doesn't exist?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

link? ^




God's existence in the minds and hearts of the vast majority of human beings on this planet is undeniable.

Therefore, God exists, even if only as an inspiration...

Under that rationale Superman "exists" too.

similar rationale, but not exactly... can you prove that superman doesn't exist?

There is a distinct probability that there are beings in the Universe with "godlike" powers. We, ourselves, can send a bolt out of the sky to kill someone on the other side of the planet. Does that make us "gods" simply because we have that power?

The existence of an omnipotent "creator" is another order of magnitude since it requires the creation of the entire Universe out of nothing. Given our current scientific knowledge the probability of an omnipotent "creator" is virtually zero.

It can't be zero because we are not omniscient but that too is virtually impossible because it implies knowing the future of every possible variation of every subatomic particle in the Universe.

We exist, the Universe exists and our knowledge is finite. Beyond that is speculation, wishful thinking and self delusion.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing. .

"Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?

A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."

This fails because A is not yet proven.

But that dodges the statement itself. MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.' He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing. From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.

And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing. And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed. This theist calls that something that has always existed God. And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.

Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR. And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't. All that demonstrates is no one can show it. This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance. Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right. It is a logical fallacy.

I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God. But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.

Stop lying, Mr. I-won't-acknowledge-my-error-about-the-full-connotations-of-the-concept-of-objectivity-because-I'm-a-dishonest-little-snake-of-a-man.

An argumentum ad ignorantiam would necessarily involve a subsequent argument in this case that does not logically follow. Cite the argument I "perhaps" made that does not logically follow from the observation that YOU cannot explain HOW something can come from nothing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Of course there is, the wonderful thing about syllogism is you can prove two contradictory ideas without any actual effort, which is why idiots think they are smart.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes. The most convincing argument for the non-existence of gods derives from the sweaty, chest-heaving appeals to magic, fear and superstition which is the entirety of the fundamentalist's argument.

Those arguments have nothing to to with logic and syllogism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no logical argument available to reach a conclusion that "magic" and supernaturalism has a place in explaining existence.

Once again you are displaying your ignorance by confusing the philosophy of logic with your close minded rejection of anything outside your limited life. Logic allows people to prove anything they can think of using rather simple rules. How do you think Aristotle proved that there were 4 elements,earth, air, fire, and water??

 

[PratchettFan]

"Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?

A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."

This fails because A is not yet proven.

But that dodges the statement itself. MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.' He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing. From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.

And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing. And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed. This theist calls that something that has always existed God. And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.

Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR. And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't. All that demonstrates is no one can show it. This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance. Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right. It is a logical fallacy.

I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God. But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.

I want you to try and prove why it cannot be true that something can come from nothing.

If you can't, I'm sure MDR will help you. I'm sleepy.

It is not my responsibility to prove you wrong. It is your responsibility to prove you right. For people who want to claim logic to validate their position it is amazing how they continuously ignore the rules of logic.

I can prove I'm right. Therefore, it's possible for you to prove that I'm right. You should attempt to do so. Can you do it? If you can't then you have to wait and ask MDR to school you on how to do it.
#
Please attempt the proof showing that "something can come from nothing" is never true (always false).

I can't. I've already seen MDR's school and he can't either. Now go ahead and prove you right. Back it up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, fail.

Youndid not.prov he was a cup using the rules of logic - you used a false premise so the argument failed.

sigh.

Look up the rules of logic and show me which one says I cannot use a false premise, you might learn something.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?

A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."

This fails because A is not yet proven.

Nothing is not a concept, idiot. Also, the rules of logic do not require a premise to be true for an argument to be valid. If you disagree, feel free to provide me with the rule that states that, if a premise is false, the conclusion is not valid.

 

[G.T.]

Yea, internally consistent bad arguments are still bad arguments.

I'm wondering if someone has a rational proof for god's existence, and no-one does. Not in this thread.

 

[G.T.]

"Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?

A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."

This fails because A is not yet proven.

Nothing is not a concept, idiot. Also, the rules of logic do not require a premise to be true for an argument to be valid. If you disagree, feel free to provide me with the rule that states that, if a premise is false, the conclusion is not valid.

Yes, the premise has to be true for the argument to be valid.

The premise can be false and the logic valid, but not the argument. The argument cannot be valid if its premises are false.

Nothing is a concept because it's not proven to exist, physically. I'll defer to physicists on that one, not a fuckin windbag.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Cognitive dissonance is saying something exists therefore God made it, while ignoring the close to infinite other possibilities.

No, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort that results from believing two contradictory things at the same time.

 

[G.T.]

Cognitive dissonance is saying something exists therefore God made it, while ignoring the close to infinite other possibilities.

No, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort that results from believing two contradictory things at the same time.

No shit, sherlock.

 

[G.T.]

Here, is a great discussion.

Not internet forum blow-hards. Accomplished men of the very field we're discussing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yea, internally consistent bad arguments are still bad arguments.

I'm wondering if someone has a rational proof for god's existence, and no-one does. Not in this thread.

The point is that the arguments are not internally inconsistent, which is why they are valid, oh he who doesn't understand logic. Like I said, if I am wrong feel free to prove it by citing the rules of logic that prove me wrong. Since this particular thread is bout logical proofs of the existence of god, and the arguments are internally consistent, you are left in the untenable position of claiming that a valid argument is invalid. If you actually understood logic you wouldn't make that claim.

Would you like me to explain how you can actually refute those arguments, or would the fact that I know something you don't destroy your universe?