Science and religion

[The Reality Salesman01]

That is not a serious objection because no one thinks that the existence of Santa Clause is necessary to explain Christmas. It is a dirty trick designed to demean religious belief and the subject matter seems intended towards playing on peoples sense of maturity.

What is wrong with seeing the existence of morality as being evidence for God's existence? What do you propose to replace it with? Morality is probably the most important question that exists in any society, and anyone who attempts to reduce morality to a mere reasoned opinion, in virtually every society, is quickly marginalized and ridiculed. What is your explanation for morality? Not an explanation of how people can have opinions about what morality is, you explanation of the most dominant factors in human societies that it is required for people to be good people, that it is not an option, that all people must be good people. How do you explain this. I don't think you want to understand the answer, because you posted about Santa Clause which is obviously irrelevant.

It is not fraught with logical errors. It is formally valid. The question is whether statement two is true. You have not provided any evidence that it is not true.

1. a
2. if a then b
3. b (MP 2,1)

It is not a syllogism. A syllogism looks like:
All S is P
All P is Q
All S is Q[/

Even your justification of why my example was not applicable was filled with fallacies...lol, "That is not a serious objection because no one thinks that the existence of Santa Clause is necessary to explain Christmas"?
Do you know how easy it is for anybody on this forum to apply that same logic to your arguments in support of God?!! But, we don't because it's illogical! Your second premise assumes its conclusion.

Pay attention:

There are many different forms of a syllogism. The one you chose to butcher failed miserably.

They should be structured like this:

1.Minor Premise
2.Major Premise
3.Conclusion (must be inferred and supported by the first two premises)

1.(minor premise)A valid and supported by evidence
2.(major premise)Its valid,accepted,supported and can be inferred that all A is also B
3.(Conclusion) If A and B then I am forced to accept C.

What you did was this.

C is true because...

1.A
2.A is C (it's still necessary to prove C, this premise is immediately rejected and cannot be used to support itself as the conclusion)
3.C

As soon as you present C as C...I am forced to ask you how you know C is true, then you start your same illogical argument from the beginning...and so on and so on...Reasoning in a Circle!

We saw a scary movie at my house.

Freddy Kruger was in it and I had a nightmare about him.

Freddy Kruger exists.


Its not even an argument! You're just stringing opinions and personal experiences together that you say are true and think we should agree!

Surely you can see how there is zero logic in your argument. I'd go back and look at it again. It wasn't cuel to point it out, it was necessary as it was used as an argument against something I have bad reasons to believe, and you offered another one. I was just illustrating why it was bad.

---

Certain particles and a number of other things in the quantum world come in and out of existance uncaused all the time. I would do some research on that one. This has been true for a long time now.

That totally ignores the primary issue of the origin of the universe, which is explained by God

No, it addresses your premise that a cause is required (God) which is what you were hoping to suggest if I accepted that the universe must have had a cause. If you expect me to accept that there is a need for your God, you must first establish your argument for the universe being caused.

No cause-No Causer!

You seemed to think that by saying that everything in the universe that comes into being had a cause, therefore the universe which came into being had a cause and you wanted to insert God as that cause.

I just used my statement to show you that it wasn't necessary for it to have a cause as quantum particles come into being uncaused. The alternative suggestion for your issue you have with the origin of the universe is that the origin is quantum.

So, my suggestion is that you pick up A Universe from Nothng by Stephen Hawking and read how the universe literally came into being uncaused. No need for a God, you are searching for one, I am waiting for you to report your results to Quantum Physicists around the world that you've got evidence that shows God did it by clapping and it wasn't the result of the complex science that is behaving the same way today it would have needed to in the beginning to create the same samples of results we would expect it to in order for such a universe to come into being out of literally...Nothng.

Are you arguing that the universe does not need to have a cause or that the problem of the origin of the cosmos is not explained by the God hypothesis?

I'm saying there is no evidence for your God or a reason to insert him as a hypothesis for anything at all. Secondly, I wasn't aware of any problem of the origin of the cosmos except for those that attempt to use God as the explanation when science has a lot of the evidence for how it happened a long time ago. The problem is that in order for God to have created the cosmos, he would need to create space. In order to create space he would need to exist out side of it. The order of events leading to the beginning of space is also when time as we know it, which is relative to space began, but you are suggesting that God existed outside space and time as if time were absolute. Which its been proven not to be. You are operating under a newtonian principle of time which has been proven wrong a long time ago. Your cell phone working is a prime example of relativity. The very properties you are assigning to God are impossible contradictions that make no sense whatsoever. You can claim whatever you want, but don't suggest its anymore true than me saying your same arguments justify the belief in Santa. Unfalsifiable Hypotheses are exactly that and nothing more. It just doesn't make sense for you to have to try so hard to show something that is actually TRUE to be TRUE. Don't you think? You don't seem to have a clue that the very principles your arguments hinge on are only an issue to you because you have God Blinders on. A lot of the things you think necessary to attribute to God have been explained in the last 30 years. I would really suggest that you pick up a book. You sound so lost and misguided, it's actually kinda sad.