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

newpolitics

vegan atheist indy
Sep 27, 2008
2,931
262
48
Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

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.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
 
There is an arabic saying that states (توضيح الواضحات من المعضلات)
i.e. clarifying what is clear is very difficult.

if someone request a proof for existence of the sun while he sees it every day and asses it effects on plants and all forms of life, then it is very difficult to give him a proof.

in the same manner if one thinks that these living beings all around as and that this highly complex environmental system around us is not enough to believe in the creator, it is really very difficult to persuade him.
 
Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

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.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.

Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
 
Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

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.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.

Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.

There is not a flaw in the use logic, reason, and evidence. This is how all claims are examined, and your wish to be exempt because of the nature of your claim, is simply special pleading. As long as you can not demonstrate your god, all you have a is a personal belief, which means you are not justified in evangelizing, or trying to influence the political realm with whichever theological doctrine you subscribe to. That is my point here. But, you actually seem rather reasonable. I'm more after the truly arrogant theists who are certain of their belief being true, without argument. I am an agnostic atheists, and do not pretend to know that there is no god. I simply find the claim that there is a god unsupported and see no reason to believe it.
 
There is an arabic saying that states (توضيح الواضحات من المعضلات)
i.e. clarifying what is clear is very difficult.

if someone request a proof for existence of the sun while he sees it every day and asses it effects on plants and all forms of life, then it is very difficult to give him a proof.

in the same manner if one thinks that these living beings all around as and that this highly complex environmental system around us is not enough to believe in the creator, it is really very difficult to persuade him.

I can see the sun. I can feel the sun. We can study the sun, its workings, its formation, and its effect on the solar system.

Citing complexity is a horrible argument, as there is no standard you have that objectively demonstrates that a creator is required.
 
Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

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.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.

Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.

I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.
 
There is not a flaw in the use logic, reason, and evidence. This is how all claims are examined, and your wish to be exempt because of the nature of your claim, is simply special pleading.

Claim: I still love me ex-girlfriend.

What evidence can I provide? I married a different woman, I had kids with a different woman, I love my wife, I have no pictures of my ex. I never send her gifts or letters or phone her. My love lives only in my heart and my memory.

So how do we proceed? What evidence is needed, what logic is required to evaluate the claim? How do you, an outsider, evaluate what is in my heart and what I know to be true?
 
There is not a flaw in the use logic, reason, and evidence. This is how all claims are examined, and your wish to be exempt because of the nature of your claim, is simply special pleading.

Claim: I still love me ex-girlfriend.

What evidence can I provide? I married a different woman, I had kids with a different woman, I love my wife, I have no pictures of my ex. I never send her gifts or letters or phone her. My love lives only in my heart and my memory.

So how do we proceed? What evidence is needed, what logic is required to evaluate the claim? How do you, an outsider, evaluate what is in my heart and what I know to be true?

There should be some Pink Floyd playing while people read that post
 
Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

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.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.

Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.

I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.

You take issue with asking that people support their own claims?
 
There is not a flaw in the use logic, reason, and evidence. This is how all claims are examined, and your wish to be exempt because of the nature of your claim, is simply special pleading.

Claim: I still love me ex-girlfriend.

What evidence can I provide? I married a different woman, I had kids with a different woman, I love my wife, I have no pictures of my ex. I never send her gifts or letters or phone her. My love lives only in my heart and my memory.

So how do we proceed? What evidence is needed, what logic is required to evaluate the claim? How do you, an outsider, evaluate what is in my heart and what I know to be true?


You are talking about an abstraction (a memory of a lover and the ensuing emotional reaction associated with it). I can easily draw an ontological distinction between this type of claim to and a concrete claim, or a claim about something that exists in objective reality.
 
Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

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.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.

Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.

I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.

You take issue with asking that people support their own claims?

Personally I find it pointless to engage a person who is putting forth a faith-based proposition and demanding that he provide evidence in support of his faith. Such an encounter is operating at two different levels. I learned this after about 6 months of arguing with Religious Believers and then I tired of beating my head against the wall.

On the other hand though, we all get different needs met by engaging in debate. Go with what works.
 
There is not a flaw in the use logic, reason, and evidence. This is how all claims are examined, and your wish to be exempt because of the nature of your claim, is simply special pleading.

Claim: I still love me ex-girlfriend.

What evidence can I provide? I married a different woman, I had kids with a different woman, I love my wife, I have no pictures of my ex. I never send her gifts or letters or phone her. My love lives only in my heart and my memory.

So how do we proceed? What evidence is needed, what logic is required to evaluate the claim? How do you, an outsider, evaluate what is in my heart and what I know to be true?


You are talking about an abstraction (a memory of a lover and the ensuing emotional reaction associated with it). I can easily draw an ontological distinction between this type of claim to and a concrete claim, or a claim about something that exists in objective reality.

You don't think that the religious experience resides in the realm of emotion? Surely you don't believe religious people have come to their beliefs through cold, hard logic, do you?
 
I don't see why people feel that arguing over the existence of God(s) is an intelligent thing to do.

If you disbelieve, good for you. Go on disbelieving.

Underestimate the power of belief at your own expense.
 
Another intellectually challenged atheist demanding physical proof of a spiritual existence. Why bother, he's never gonna understand it anyway (not that he really wants to). You're either smart enough to be able to think outside the box or you're not, and NP obviously isn't.
 
Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

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.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

Of course Atheism is justified. It is as valid a belief as any other belief.
 
Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

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.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

Yes.

People who think God is a myth must also believe if you stare at a pile of dirt long enough it will turn into a clam.

Then if you stare at that clam long enough it will turn into a gorilla.

All because of their gods "time and chance."

Forgive our hyper-bewilderment.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top