Very short argument for God (another clear proof)

[Cyberman]

Ducks are birds.  Ducks swim in the water.  Chickens are birds.  Therefore chickens swim in the water.  

Chickens are tasty. Chickens have wings. Lil-Lets have wings. Therefore roast Lil-Lets with stuffing is delicious.

[The Grand Nudger]

Had to look it up, wanted to know what a lil-let was.  Appetizing, lol.

[possibletarian]

Least we wont go hungry, biggest helping of word salad ever.

[polymath257]

Looks like someone would profit greatly from a basic logic class.

[possibletarian]

Oh, okay, I get it.  So, if you capitalize the words that increases their truthiness?

Don't be ridiculous, they are only true if you bold them...

[LadyForCamus]

Among the arguments I know conclusively proves God: "goodness in all possible worlds has one definition and reality" and since we know it's possible it originates from God while we don't know it's possible it originates from anything else, it's proven to be from God.

I tried expressing this formally. This is what I came up with. MK, feel free correct any errors I might have made.

1. Goodness in all possible worlds has one definition and reality.
2. We know it's possible goodness originates from God.
3. We don't know it's possible it originates from anything else.

Therefore, goodness is proven to be from God.

Let's just assume all the premises are true so we can examine the logic. I don't think this follows. Premise 2 and 3 do nothing to support the conclusion. Let's plug in some different variables.

2. We know it's possible the taffy originates from the local candy factory.
3. We don't know it's possible the taffy originates from anywhere else.
Therefore, the taffy is proven to be from the local candy factory. 

I think you have an argument from ignorance here. I could be wrong, but the fact remains this does not follow. Anyone care to figure out which fallacy?

Argument from ignorance, and most certainly personal incredulity.

[Mystic]

Among the arguments I know conclusively proves God: "goodness in all possible worlds has one definition and reality" and since we know it's possible it originates from God while we don't know it's possible it originates from anything else, it's proven to be from God.

I tried expressing this formally. This is what I came up with. MK, feel free correct any errors I might have made.

1. Goodness in all possible worlds has one definition and reality.
2. We know it's possible goodness originates from God.
3. We don't know it's possible it originates from anything else.

Therefore, goodness is proven to be from God.

Let's just assume all the premises are true so we can examine the logic. I don't think this follows. Premise 2 and 3 do nothing to support the conclusion. Let's plug in some different variables.

2. We know it's possible the taffy originates from the local candy factory.
3. We don't know it's possible the taffy originates from anywhere else.
Therefore, the taffy is proven to be from the local candy factory. 

I think you have an argument from ignorance here. I could be wrong, but the fact remains this does not follow. Anyone care to figure out which fallacy?

I can easily show you went wrong and have a false analogy.

How about I give you a chance or Atheists a chance to correct you.

It may help you to reason to arrive at what reason calls. (hint: look at premise 1).

[Cyberman]

Argument from anything-is-proof-of-god-just-because-I-want-it-so-badly-to-be-true.

[Aoi Magi]

I can easily show you went wrong and have a false analogy.

How about I give you a chance or Atheists a chance to correct you.

It may help you to reason to arrive at what reason calls. (hint: look at premise 1).

You mean:-
1. Taffy in all possible worlds has one definition and reality.

Ok... what does that have to do with the molestation-of-logic in 2 or 3?

[Mystic]

I can easily show you went wrong and have a false analogy.

How about I give you a chance or Atheists a chance to correct you.

It may help you to reason to arrive at what reason calls. (hint: look at premise 1).

You mean:-
1. Taffy in all possible worlds has one definition and reality.

Ok... what does that have to do with the molestation-of-logic in 2 or 3?

Taffy for sure doesn't have on possible definition and reality.

For example, it can be created differently through different means.  It can be added a mint taste. It has various ways it can taste or be made.

Is the same true of morality? Is a matter that it can be this or that, and can be made from anything like even Aliens?

Think about it. Really. What the heart of goodness is, and you will see love has to value things objectively as best as possible, and even relationships established by love have a truth with it.

Everything is created in truth, it's not chaotic chemicals that came out through mutations and other factors, that produces the value "it's good to love" nor is chemicals that make you inherit your actions nor are you actions at the end just physical but have spiritual intentions and they are linked to you.