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

[Foxfyre]

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.

Do they? Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
1. That something comes from nothing?
2. Or that something comes from something?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Do they? Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
1. That something comes from nothing?
2. Or that something comes from something?

Neither.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Do they? Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
1. That something comes from nothing?
2. Or that something comes from something?

It doesnt matter - we haven't PROVEN that "nothing" as a concept ever existed in reality.

In other words, there may have never been "nothing," so it's not PROOF of anything, logically or otherwise, to say that "because we've never observed something coming from nothing, = god."

That's a leap.

The second problem, is that BECAUSE we've never observed it doesnt PROVE that it cant happen. So to use it as a logical PROOF, without having even proven that part of the premise, is a fallacy.

 

[sealybobo]

Huh? Proof that there are people who say there is not god? I don't need proof to know people like that exist. I'm one of them dummy.

No, idiot, proof that there are people who say they know there is no god. When presented with evidence from people who actually say this, you insist they don't really mean what they say because you think your interpretation of the universe is the only one that is valid.

You don't seem to want to understand. No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.

How do I know? I say it all the time. THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD! But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.

Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth. That makes you a gullible fool.

It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.

There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.

According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.

Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible. His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex. It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class. And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.

Fox, what are you talking about? The topic is the classical arguments for God's existence! The pertinent concerns are objective, not subjective. The fundamental apprehensions of the problem of origin, beginning with the universal laws of logic, are objectively apparent to all. There's nothing mysterious or difficult about these. One doesn't have to have any extraordinary store of knowledge about philosophy or science to see these things, one just has to be honest with one's self. One just has to be real. They're imprinted on our minds or, for you materialists, they're physiologically and biochemically hardwired. They are immediately apparent. They are of the same stuff as that which a child barely out of infancy recognizes before it has a name for them. Circle. Square. Triangle. The ability to make out the constituents of spatial dimension in terms of motion. A = A. A = not-A. The essence of addition or subtraction (more or less). Of course, some of these fundamentals, the slightly more elaborate, like the law of the excluded middle, for example, require a bit more developmental experience, but by the age of 12, let's say, something's seriously wrong if one doesn't have them down by then or can't readily grasp them once they are explained to one.

Getting at the essence of what the arguments for God's existence actually is, is slightly more difficult, but no less objective. Even that enterprise doesn't require any additional knowledge, because their essence axiomatically follows from the fundamental apprehensions. The only thing standing in the way of grasping the essence of the arguments for some is rank self-deception or pride. Make no mistake about, this thread is filled with lies, conscious, premeditated lies, hiding behind sneer and bluster.

Now beyond that level of apprehension we get into what is staggeringly complex and does require significant learning beyond the fundamentals of apprehension and common logic. I've barely scratched the surface, in fact, given that the object of these arguments' is infinitely complex, I'll never, relatively speaking, be able to put so much as a dent into that

jesus Christ on a bicycle could you PLEASE be brief and speak in the common tongue?

I don't think I wrote that.

 

[sealybobo]

There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

(Okay, this post is different from the one for which I wrote a response, which I was about to post before my computer did an automatic shutdown. The original included quotes from the Physicist Victor Stenger, so here we go. . . .)

There's a reason why Victor Stenger’s guff is the minority opinion among cosmologists and physicists, atheists and theists alike. For all his smarts in his field, his pseudo-theological bloviations are those of an obtuse ninny.

The universe is extremely hostile to life (Victor Stenger).

Non sequitur.

Yes, indeed, it is, and it's especially hostile to any of the conceivable processes of an abiogenetic origin for life. But the universe's arguable hostility toward extant life is not the issue. The issue is that if the respective astronomical arrangements and conditions of the universe, especially those of our solar system, did not persist within a very narrow range of parameters, if, collectively, they were less than one percent off, life wouldn't exist, let alone the indispensable biochemical precursors of life.

Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space (Victor Stenger).

Non sequitur.

Right. Life is rare in the universe precisely because it can only exist within a very narrow range of parameters, and the fact that we know of at least one discrete enclave of the universe where life exists doesn't undermine the idea of a divine origin at all, but arguably underscores it. Duh.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended (Victor Stenger).

Oh? So the fact that life can only exist within a very narrow range of parameters, the only pertinent and objectively discernible thing that matters, suggests nothing at all about a Sentient origin, especially when one considers the staggeringly complex enterprise that sentient life is and the odds against it even in a universe that permits its existence? Is Stenger arguing for or against God's existence?

On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution (Victor Stenger).

Now Stenger’s making a counter teleological argument that necessarily (and unwittingly) presupposes to know something about what the intent of a transcendent Sentience of origin, Whose existence he denies, would be, based on his purely subjective perspective of things, as he unwittingly superimposes the scientifically unfalsifiable apriority of materialism on the question.


Special treatment:

. . . the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time . . . indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things. . . .

For crying out loud! He's arguing complexity, the very thing atheists claim to be fallacious, albeit, against the notion of divine origin! LOL! Well, hell, which is it?

But more to the point, given that he has allowed that complexity is a valid basis for argumentation after all: why isn't it reasonable to argue that a Sentient origin has orchestrated an awesomely and staggeringly complex display of His majesty precisely because sentient creatures are central in the scheme of things and so that they may surmise His existence? Is Stenger's point that simplicity would indicate an infinitely powerful and ingenious Being of origin? LOL!

. . . we are . . . mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution.

Chance variation and the putative mechanisms of evolutionary theory would be contingent on the cosmos' fixed physical laws and chemical compositions determining the subsequent conditions under which speciation would occur, and none of these things are equivalent to agency, not individually or collectively.

From this we may see that his conclusion is assumed in the premises of his atheistic meanderings, when the only discernibly objective fact of relevance is the rarity of life in the universe due to the very narrow range of parameters within which it can exist.

Stenger's argument is a rash of utterly immaterial, subjective mush.


Hence, as I wrote elseswhere:

. . . Indeed, it took the naysayers of the Twentieth Century several decades to realize what theists were ultimately getting at: the processes leading to the actualization of all these wondrous things are necessarily contingent to or bottomed on a singularly discrete and indispensable regiment of physical laws and conditions which permitted the cosmos to achieve the ability to contemplate itself in the first place. Sentience. While this is not an absolute logical proof of God's existence, it arguably serves as an evidentially sufficient basis on which to reasonably assert His existence in terms of the cosmos's ultimate purpose.

. . . the current objection developed by those who finally came to grips with the enduring, though, for a season, obscured, transcendent implications of the fact that the universe is fine-tuned, acknowledge today by most cosmologists and physicists, at the very least, for the prerequisite conditions allowing for the existence of the indispensable biochemical precursors of life: namely, the anthropic principle as predicated on the statistical dynamics of a multiverse providing for an arguably credible model of selection bias. ​

People, the above is the only arguably sustainable objection to the teleological argument, though it still has no real impact on the ultimate concern in this universe (see post #106 for the full argument). Stenger's crap is as bad or worse than Dawkins' theologically sophomoric tripe: for example, "Who created God?"

If there were a god, he would have put a planet with life around every star not just ours.

You know how you know god is all in our heads? You hope your boss doesn't call and when it's someone else you thank god. I do it too. You're in a big hand at the poker table and you win. If you would have lost you'd be out of money. You win so you thank god. Actors and boxers thank god. When one person survives a crash and 100 other people die, they thank god. Why didn't he help the othe 100 people? When people escape death or science cures their cancer, they thank god. What did the baby that died of cancer do that god didn't save her?

It's all in your tiny human heads. Mine too and I want it out! LOL.

 

[MaxGrit]

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.

I want you to try and prove what I claim. Meaning, please attempt the proof showing that "something can come from nothing" is never true (always false).

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

 

[sealybobo]

I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos. But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God. All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true". If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.

Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue is all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?

If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?

(And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of object is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)

You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?

They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.

Was I brainwashed with atheism when my parents took me to church as a child? How about when they let the born agains talk to us one week one summer when we were kids? They had to get our parents permission before they could commense the brainwashin. It was very nice but I never believed the unbelievable stories. You tell me a virgin gave birth and someone rose from the dead after 3 days I say hogwash. So atheism or intelligence, logical thought, skepticism were always in me yes. The devil was not. But they said if you don't believe the stories you'll go to hell.

So theism, christianity and all other religions had their chance for 43 years to brainwashed me. After 43 years I decided there is no god. I'm still gonna be a good person I promise.

If there is a god, he never talked to any of you or anyone. And I do believe in karma, so I guess I'm a good person because I believe what comes around goes around. ACTUALLY, that isn't even true. I don't not rape, murder or steal because I don't want it to come back to bite me. I have a conscience.

The question is, without the religious brainwashing for 43 years, would I have a conscience? Good question.

 

[sealybobo]

Huh? Proof that there are people who say there is not god? I don't need proof to know people like that exist. I'm one of them dummy.

No, idiot, proof that there are people who say they know there is no god. When presented with evidence from people who actually say this, you insist they don't really mean what they say because you think your interpretation of the universe is the only one that is valid.

You don't seem to want to understand. No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.

How do I know? I say it all the time. THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD! But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.

Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth. That makes you a gullible fool.

According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.

Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible. His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex. It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class. And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.

Fox, what are you talking about? The topic is the classical arguments for God's existence! The pertinent concerns are objective, not subjective. The fundamental apprehensions of the problem of origin, beginning with the universal laws of logic, are objectively apparent to all. There's nothing mysterious or difficult about these. One doesn't have to have any extraordinary store of knowledge about philosophy or science to see these things, one just has to be honest with one's self. One just has to be real. They're imprinted on our minds or, for you materialists, they're physiologically and biochemically hardwired. They are immediately apparent. They are of the same stuff as that which a child barely out of infancy recognizes before it has a name for them. Circle. Square. Triangle. The ability to make out the constituents of spatial dimension in terms of motion. A = A. A = not-A. The essence of addition or subtraction (more or less). Of course, some of these fundamentals, the slightly more elaborate, like the law of the excluded middle, for example, require a bit more developmental experience, but by the age of 12, let's say, something's seriously wrong if one doesn't have them down by then or can't readily grasp them once they are explained to one.

Getting at the essence of what the arguments for God's existence actually is, is slightly more difficult, but no less objective. Even that enterprise doesn't require any additional knowledge, because their essence axiomatically follows from the fundamental apprehensions. The only thing standing in the way of grasping the essence of the arguments for some is rank self-deception or pride. Make no mistake about, this thread is filled with lies, conscious, premeditated lies, hiding behind sneer and bluster.

Now beyond that level of apprehension we get into what is staggeringly complex and does require significant learning beyond the fundamentals of apprehension and common logic. I've barely scratched the surface, in fact, given that the object of these arguments' is infinitely complex, I'll never, relatively speaking, be able to put so much as a dent into that

jesus Christ on a bicycle could you PLEASE be brief and speak in the common tongue?

He's saying that the fact that you can know anything at all in this universe is the proof that God exists.

You think and therefore you must know since you are thinking about something that you know. Thus God must exist.

Well, ultimately, yes. But the logic that leads to that is a long train, and the atheist doesn't get or know that.

At this point all I'm talking about are those things that everybody knows, including the atheist.

What I just proved in the above, more at, what the atheist NYcarbineer just admitted to knowing just like everybody else:

1. The idea of God is not a figment of human culture. It's a propositional absolute.
2. The existence of the substance of the idea of God cannot be rationally denied. There are only two logically consistent positions to take regarding the question of whether or not the eternally existent, uncaused cause is sentient or not sentient: theism or agnosticism. Strict atheism is irrational, as the possibility that the first uncaused cause is sentient cannot be rationally denied, and the atheist necessarily concedes that there must be an eternally existent, uncaused caused of one kind or the other.

3. (Note how the assertion that the eternally existent, uncaused cause must be sentient doesn't on the face of it violate the rules of logic, whether it be a seemingly unsupported presupposition or not, while the stark denial that it can't be sentient does violate the rules of logic.)

Hence, the real issue is not whether or not there exists an eternally existent, uncaused cause. What is atheism? It's nothing more than the idea that the first uncaused cause it not sentient. And that's all it is.

4. The existence of the universe is the evidence for the eternally existent, uncaused cause.

EVERBODY KNOWS THESE THINGS ARE TRUE.

Aside to QW: Jesus on a bicycle, is that brief enough, in plain enough language? These truths that everybody knows, including the atheist, are some of the fundamental, absolute, objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the problem of origin. What does every friggin' atheist on this thread believe, whether they are trying to give a scientific account for it or not? They believe something has always existed. They believe that an eternally existent, uncaused cause must exist.

These are the things that objectively matter because these are the kind of things everybody knows. These is noise. The noise only further confuses things. I don't do noise. I stick to what matters.

There may very well be a god or something that created us. Atheists see no sign of that but it is possible. Not probable but possible. But there could be. We will give you theists that.

Now, does this god care about us? Did he ever come here and talk to some of us? Are the stories in the bible or koran true? Probably not. I don't have any doubt they are all made up. Too much evidence suggests it.

So maybe something did create all this. Who knows? Certainly not theists.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

The law of conservation of matter/energy indicates that the Universe has always existed in one form or another. So according to your argument that would equate the Universe to your God, right?

 

[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.

This is wrong.

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

The syllogism is logically valid, and the conclusion is factually true if the major premise is true.

Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect if, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.

In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.

Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! LOL! Another way to say this is that there is something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Do they? Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
1. That something comes from nothing?
2. Or that something comes from something?

It doesnt matter - we haven't PROVEN that "nothing" as a concept ever existed in reality.

In other words, there may have never been "nothing," so it's not PROOF of anything, logically or otherwise, to say that "because we've never observed something coming from nothing, = god."

That's a leap.

The second problem, is that BECAUSE we've never observed it doesnt PROVE that it cant happen. So to use it as a logical PROOF, without having even proven that part of the premise, is a fallacy.

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.

Do they? Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
1. That something comes from nothing?
2. Or that something comes from something?

Neither.

Really? You poor thing confined to that dark cave devoid of any experience of the outside world all these years. Tsk Tsk. For myself, fortunate to live and enjoy a lot of what the Earth has to offer, I have observed a whole lot of stuff in a rather lengthy life now, but I have never seen a cake baked with no ingredients at all. I have never seen a plant appear in which a seed or another plant was not involved. I have never seen an ant that didn't originate in some colony somewhere. I've never seen a garment that some human did not fashion in some way.

For me that is all evidence that strongly suggests that everything that exists originated from something. I will confess that I do not understand those who would dismiss that as evidence. Proof? No. But I have not argued proof. Only evidence and probability based on what can be seen, touched, tasted, experienced, reasoned.

 

[G.T.]

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.

I want you to try and prove what I claim. Meaning, please attempt the proof showing that "something can come from nothing" is never true (always false).

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

That you responded with this, means that it's flying way the fuck over your head, "sleepy."

That we have not observed something coming from nothing is not a logical proof that it is impossible.

It is improbable, but not proven impossible, thus cannot be used as a PROOF.

Second, nothing as a concept has also not been proven to have existed, EVER.

Therefore, for a secondary reason, it cannot be used as a PROOF.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

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.

 

[MaxGrit]

You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?

They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.

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

They are in denial. Their faith in atheism compels them to believe that something can come from nothing.

You are telling atheists that 2+2 = 4, yet they insist that 2+2 = 3 because of their faith in atheism.

No. What you are saying is that 0 + 0 = 4. And then you are insisting that any demand that you back that statement up is a denial. The responsibility for supporting a claim is on the person making the claim. Arguing the claim is proven because the other party does not disprove it is a logical fallacy.

Can't you see that it's you who says 0+0=4?
I call you crazy because you actually believe that 0+0=4. I tell you that 0+0=0. However, you refuses to believe me.
You insists that it's perfectly logical for 0+0=4.
Since 0+0=0, it's self-evident that you have cognitive dissonance.
You are in denial to reality.

No. It is you who insist that nothing is something. You have no objective evidence to support your claim. Pointing to the universe and saying "See" is not evidence of anything but the existence of the universe. It proves nothing. So proceed and present your evidence. If you can't then you are claiming no evidence is the same thing as evidence.... nothing = something.

What is self-evident here is that you can't seem to differentiate between what you believe and what you know. I find that to typically be a self-imposed disability.

I was talking to MDR so I have no idea what you want me to prove.

 

[G.T.]

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.

This is wrong.

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

The syllogism is logically valid, and the conclusion is factually true if the major premise is true.

Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect if, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.

In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.

Go ahead. Try it. Forget about alleged informal criticism for a moment, and as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the assertion in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently guarantee you that any such argument will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise! LOL! Another way to say this is that there is something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.

Whether or not god exists, I know that I DONT KNOW everything. That is inherent knowledge.
Because if I did know everything, I'd necessary have to ALSO know that I know everything, which I don't.
This is knowledge in the absence of God.

Also, god it/his/herself is not proven thus it's most DEFINITELY not proven that without god there is no knowledge. That's cart before the horse.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

The law of conservation of matter/energy indicates that the Universe has always existed in one form or another. So according to your argument that would equate the Universe to your God, right?

It would be one way to reason it. That was actually Spinoza and Einstein's theory. Each did not suppose the origins of the universe as important except in the matter of scientific curiosity. But each observed a symmetry and order and method in the universe that went against all laws of probability as being by pure chance or accident. So they both concluded that it was reasonable to leave open the possibility of some form of intelligence guiding the process. It was that reasoned observation that caused Einstein to reject the label of Atheist even though he did not accept any form of personal God or deity.

Both were pure scientists as opposed to those who make a religion of science and judge those who disagree with their conclusions to be heretics and unscientific.

 

[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.

Do they? Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
1. That something comes from nothing?
2. Or that something comes from something?

It doesnt matter - we haven't PROVEN that "nothing" as a concept ever existed in reality.

In other words, there may have never been "nothing," so it's not PROOF of anything, logically or otherwise, to say that "because we've never observed something coming from nothing, = god."

That's a leap.

The second problem, is that BECAUSE we've never observed it doesnt PROVE that it cant happen. So to use it as a logical PROOF, without having even proven that part of the premise, is a fallacy.

"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.

Do they? Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
1. That something comes from nothing?
2. Or that something comes from something?

Neither.

Really? You poor thing confined to that dark cave devoid of any experience of the outside world all these years. Tsk Tsk. For myself, fortunate to live and enjoy a lot of what the Earth has to offer, I have observed a whole lot of stuff in a rather lengthy life now, but I have never seen a cake baked with no ingredients at all. I have never seen a plant appear in which a seed or another plant was not involved. I have never seen an ant that didn't originate in some colony somewhere. I've never seen a garment that some human did not fashion in some way.

For me that is all evidence that strongly suggests that everything that exists originated from something. I will confess that I do not understand those who would dismiss that as evidence. Proof? No. But I have not argued proof. Only evidence and probability based on what can be seen, touched, tasted, experienced, reasoned.

Really. Matter and energy interact with each other and they continuously form new structures, but everything that is here has been here from the beginning. Something may act as a catalyst, but it does not create something. If you put a hydrogen atom in a vacuum, it will not suddenly create another hydrogen atom. At least, there is no evidence that this is happening, just as there is no evidence that something comes from nothing.

We have no idea if there was an origin, or what the source of that origin might be. Simply because we can't think of another answer to that question does not make the answer we come up with correct. In the face of an absence of evidence, you make the conclusion which feels right to you. But that does not make it any more true than any other conclusion. This is belief, and I have no problem with belief. But belief is all it is. I get that you are not saying otherwise, but MDR and Maxgrit certainly are.

 

[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.

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.

Do they? Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
1. That something comes from nothing?
2. Or that something comes from something?

It doesnt matter - we haven't PROVEN that "nothing" as a concept ever existed in reality.

In other words, there may have never been "nothing," so it's not PROOF of anything, logically or otherwise, to say that "because we've never observed something coming from nothing, = god."

That's a leap.

The second problem, is that BECAUSE we've never observed it doesnt PROVE that it cant happen. So to use it as a logical PROOF, without having even proven that part of the premise, is a fallacy.

"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.

Do they? Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
1. That something comes from nothing?
2. Or that something comes from something?

Neither.

Really? You poor thing confined to that dark cave devoid of any experience of the outside world all these years. Tsk Tsk. For myself, fortunate to live and enjoy a lot of what the Earth has to offer, I have observed a whole lot of stuff in a rather lengthy life now, but I have never seen a cake baked with no ingredients at all. I have never seen a plant appear in which a seed or another plant was not involved. I have never seen an ant that didn't originate in some colony somewhere. I've never seen a garment that some human did not fashion in some way.

For me that is all evidence that strongly suggests that everything that exists originated from something. I will confess that I do not understand those who would dismiss that as evidence. Proof? No. But I have not argued proof. Only evidence and probability based on what can be seen, touched, tasted, experienced, reasoned.

Not having seen it means it isn't true, is what you just said.

Now, critically think back on that. Think really really hard about that.

What you'll conclude is that it is not sufficient. At all.

Do you need to know all of the things deemed impossible because they were never observed - but later proven possible...................................in order to nkiow why that train of thought fails? Or no?

 

[MaxGrit]

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.

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).

 

[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...