A simple challenge for atheists

[I_am_not_mafia]

Through reasoning, we discover that the existence of God is logically possible (ontological, cosmological, teleological). Tell me what is wrong with this syllogism:

1. If God possible, miracles are possible,
2. God is possible
3. Therefore Miracles are possible

Please define what God is and then we can question whether God is possible.

In all probability, the answer is that God is not possible.

[robvalue]

The problem is God says that's all nonsense. He's right next to me, do you have a question for him steve? Aren't you interested in talking to him?

[IATIA]

Tell me what is wrong with this syllogism:

1. If God possible, miracles are possible,
2. God is possible
3. Therefore Miracles are possible

Line 1, 2 and 3.

The first line should be 'If god exists, miracles are possible.' Line 2 is an assumption, therefore line 3 is invalid.

[robvalue]

Whenever I say God is with me, people treat it like I'm making it up. If I've seen God, how can I make it up? I mean, all those people in the bible saw him, they couldn't have made it up right?

[Esquilax]

Through reasoning, we discover that the existence of God is logically possible (ontological, cosmological, teleological).

But we've already established that the cosmological argument doesn't get you to god, the ontological argument is nothing but assertions attempting to sneak god in by just defining god as "a thing that exists," and the teleological argument just asserts design without demonstrating it.

As usual, you're privileging assertions you already agree with based on no evidence, while dismissing those that you don't. None of the arguments you say proves god "logically possible" have any justification to them, and if we're throwing out the need for real world justifications for arguments, then anything is logically possible. Besides, as you've been told in the past, "logically possible" is not the same as "physically possible:" the former is the first step to the latter, but the latter needs to be demonstrated before anything attains the label of possible. It's another one of those things you simply refuse to justify.

Tell me what is wrong with this syllogism:

1. If God possible, miracles are possible,
2. God is possible
3. Therefore Miracles are possible

Easy: premise one doesn't follow at all, premise two is simply asserted and not demonstrated, and therefore the conclusion is based on nothing at all.

The definition of miracles is an event that occurs beyond the explanation of natural things.

Which you haven't demonstrated is even a thing that's possible. Why do you keep just ignoring this point?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's also an amusing little piece of mechanics as as

Can be summed up to:

if miracles are possible, then miracles are possible
miracles are possible
therefore miracles are possible

-what with "god" containing a not-so-hidden assumption of an entity capable of performing miracles.

[robvalue]

I'm concerned. This is the same line of "reasoning" frodo was using before he blew his top. An obsession wih his beliefs not being irrational, rather than them being rational or true.

[downbeatplumb]

1. If God possible, miracles are possible,

Please explain in detail what god is I want to know some things before we move on from this statement.
How is god supposed to do all the things attributed to him?
What processes and materials does he use?
Where did come from?
What is gods motivation?
What exactly is god made of?

2. God is possible

I don't think anyone has come close to even establishing what a god is in a satisfactory manner so no I don't think god is possible.

3. Therefore Miracles are possible

If something can happen it can't be a miracle. So miracles by their very definition are impossible events and so do not happen EVER.

[robvalue]

We have both God and miracle undefined in a series of assertions. Indeed, it is certainly not a given that "God" is possible, especially when it hasn't even been defined yet. What the fuck is a God and how do I know it from my toaster?

[Esquilax]

It's also an amusing little piece of mechanics as as

Can be summed up to:

if miracles are possible, then miracles are possible
miracles are possible
therefore miracles are possible

-what with "god" containing a not-so-hidden assumption of an entity capable of performing miracles.

You can actually boil it down further, to:

God is the conclusion I want to reach.
An argument that gets me to god is possible.
Here is an argument for god.

Let's not pretend for a second that Steve actually cares about the premises of his argument, because if he did they'd actually be premises and not just three repetitions of his conclusion. Just like William Lane Craig's argumentation, all this is is tarting up his conclusion in the garb of argumentation, without actually doing any of the intellectual work that would require.