10 Syllogistic arguments for Gods existence

[The Architect Of Fate]

I actually enjoy them.  Those walls of text humanize the poor bastards who come here trying to convince themselves that they have something right.  It's the difference between a polished on-message polemic and an unintentionally frank bit of rambling-while-drunk.

We may not learn anything about the universe from them, but they're a wealth of information about the people who post them.

True enough

[Deesse23]

I rather had 1 evidence than 10 arguments.

[Otangelo]

So all the same nonsense as before .Sorry you will win fish here with this stuff

---

Truck stop bathroom walls come to mind.......

For once we agree on something

Why do I need to follow a link and watch a video to read a syllogism?  Type it out here so we can evaluate the truth of the premises and validity of the form.

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2...-existence

[Mister Agenda]

10 Syllogistic arguments for Gods existence



A syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true. None of the ten arguments presented here, are based on lack of knowledge or gaps, but scientific evidence, which leads logically to a creator as the best explanation of origins.

1. Being cannot come from non-being 0:11
2. Who created the creator 0:37
3. The laws of physics point to a creator 1:33
4. Fine-tuning of the universe points to a fine-tuner 2:11
5. Abiogenesis research has failed 3:06
6. The factory maker argument 4:14
7. Cells are irreducibly complex 5:44
8. Where do complex organisms come from? 7:05
9. Gene regulatory networks (dGRN's) point to design 8:12
10. The tasks performed by the dGRN point to intelligent setup 9:24

1. Mere assertion
2. Not logically part of a syllogism
3. Mere assertion
4. Over extension of the anthropic principle
5. Abiogenesis research is in its infancy, yet has made important discoveries
6. Superficial appearance of design is not necessarily the same thing as actual design
7. Mere assertion
8. Not logically part of a syllogism
9. Mere assertion
10. Mere assertion

Frankly, the last two seem to have just been tossed in to get to ten, they're rightfully part of seven.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So all the same nonsense as before .Sorry you will win fish here with this stuff

---

For once we agree on something

Why do I need to follow a link and watch a video to read a syllogism?  Type it out here so we can evaluate the truth of the premises and validity of the form.

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2...-existence

Keep reposting this .It won't help you

[Otangelo]

tion

5. Abiogenesis research is in its infancy, yet has made important discoveries

Some of the worlds leading scientists in the field of synthetic chemistry, biochemistry, and computational biology, like James Tour, Graham Cairns Smith, Eugene Koonin and Steve Benner have stated that solving the mystery of the origin of life is  categorically not possible, that science has no clue how to solve the riddle, and  the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general.



Eugene Koonin


 advisory editorial board of Trends in Genetics, writes in his book: The Logic of Chance: 
" The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, Eugene V. Koonin, page 351:

" The origin of life is the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general. Indeed, the problem is so hard and the current state of 
the art seems so frustrating that some researchers prefer to dismiss the entire issue as being outside the scientific domain altogether, on the grounds that unique
events are not conducive to scientific study.

A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the
multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle. The difficulties remain formidable. For all the effort, we do not currently have
coherent and plausible models for the path from simple organic molecules to the first life forms. Most damningly, the powerful mechanisms of biological evolution were
not available for all the stages preceding the emergence of replicator systems. Given all these major difficulties, it appears prudent to seriously consider radical alternatives
for the origin of life. " 

James Tour:

Dr. Tour on the Origin of Life at Syracuse University Cru  min. 23:53
Origin of life research is a retarded field of science little as advanced in the field since the highly touted 1952 Miller year experiment after 2/3 of a century the world is no closer to generating life
from small molecules or any molecules for that matter than it was in 1952 one could argue that origin of life research is even more befuddle now than it was in 1952 since more questions have evolved in answers since we understand much more about the cell it's made us realize that we're further from having a cell.

At least Miller Urey took some simple compounds passed them across a large voltage gap and saw some scrambled amino acids at least that was simple stuff going on in there now there are really elaborate experiments and still they get very little this explains the retarded state of origin of life research 


It appears that nature itself provides conclusive evidence that natural processes are incapable of assembling a living cell.Wherever one looks there are problems. 8

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began
The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation. Dissatisfied with conventional theories of life's beginning, Crick conjectured that aliens came to Earth in a spaceship and planted the seeds of life here billions of years ago. Creationists are no doubt thrilled that origin-of-life research has reached such an impasse (see for example the screed "Darwinism Refuted," which cites my 1991 article), but they shouldn't be. Their explanations suffer from the same flaw: What created the divine Creator? And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life's mystery instead of blaming it all on God.


Steve Benner: 

Paradoxes in the origin of life. 2015 Jan 22 Benner SA1.


Steve Benner is the founder and president of the Westheimer Corporation, a private research organization, and a prior Harvard University professor. He is one of the world’s leading authorities on abiogenesis. This is his evaluation of what he has observed:  Discussed here is an alternative approach to guide research into the origins of life, one that focuses on “paradoxes”, pairs of statements, both grounded in theory and observation, that (taken
together) suggest that the “origins problem” cannot be solved.

We are now 60 years into the modern era of prebiotic chemistry. That era has produced tens of thousands of papers attempting to define processes by which “molecules that look like biology” might arise from “molecules that do not look like biology” …. For the most part, these papers report “success” in the sense that those papers define the term…. And yet, the problem remains unsolved

Graham Cairns Smith: 

The implausibility of prevital nucleic acid

Genetic takeover, Cairns Smith, page 66:

[/url][url=https://b-ok.cc/book/2797668/0495a0]

Now you may say that there are alternative ways of building up nucleotides, and perhaps there was some geochemical way on the early Earth. But what we know of the experimental difficulties in nucleotide synthesis speaks strongly against any such supposition. However it is to be put together, a nucleotide is too complex and metastable a molecule for there to be any reason to expect an easy synthesis.

If you were to consider in more detail a process such as the purification of an intermediate ( to form amide bonds between amino acids and nucleotides ) you would find many subsidiary operations — washings, pH changes and so on. (Remember Merrifield’s machine: for one overall reaction, making one peptide bond, there were about 90 distinct operations required.)

[The Grand Nudger]

Must have been the great fairy, then. Oh well, I guess biology can just pack it all up. All they ever had to do was ask a shaman.

[Ranjr]

All syllogisms have three lines: a major, a minor, and a conclusion.
Creationist writes many more than three lines of supposition and opinion.
Creationist did not use syllogisms.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Must have been the great fairy, then.  Oh well, I guess biology can just pack it all up.  All they ever had to do was ask a shaman.

See what i mean of a wall of text that says nothing at all.

[brewer]

A syllogism  is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true. None of the ten arguments presented here, are based on lack of knowledge or gaps, but scientific evidence, which leads logically to a creator as the best explanation of origins.

Assume away dickhead. god(s) can't be argued into existence.