10 Syllogistic arguments for Gods existence

[no one]

The actual arguments for the existence of a wish-granting magic sky daddy:

1) Thinking is hard.
2) Fantasy is much more appealing than reality.
3) Magic allows me to feel important.
4) Death is scary.
5) Did I mention thinking is hard?

[The Architect Of Fate]

The actual arguments for the existence of a wish-granting magic sky daddy:

1) Thinking is hard.
2) Fantasy is much more appealing than reality.
3) Magic allows me to feel important.
4) Death is scary.
5) Did I mention thinking is hard?

Pretty much

[GUBU]

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

I'm not even going to bother watching the idiot video because if the summaries you've plagarised are accurate, there's nothing that hasn't been disproven already on these fora in it.

1) That is an assertion, not proven.
2) Yes, if your teleological arguments are valid, who did create the creator? That question is not a point in your favour, I may add. Turtles all the way down causes more problems than it solves.
3) Assertion. If anything, what we understand of the universe (there are no laws of physics, that is outdated Newtonian thinking, based on the idea of a clockwork universe), points towards the non-existence of a creator being, and definitely to the non-necessity of such a being. Therefore using William of Ockham as our guide, we can safely disregard the god assertion until provided with contrary evidence.
4) a) Define fine turning, b) prove that the universe is fine tuned. It may surprise you to hear this, but the fact isn't that the universe was created to fit us, but rather that we, as part of the universe and generated within its conditions, are evolved to fit within a very small part of it, at a certain point in time*.
5) No it hasn't. Miller-Urey proved that abiogenesis can occur, it's just that we don't know the exact mechanism for abiogenesis on Earth, largely because we cannot properly create the early Earth conditions.
6) My guess this is either Paley's Watch or Hoyle's Jumbo Jet. While we can forgive the good (and he was truly good, being pretty much revolutionary in how the church and the state should help everybody, anticipating the modern social-democratic state in many ways) reverend his faux pas because he lived in an era before Darwin, Mendel, Crick, Watson or any of the many others who helped develop modern evolutionary theory, Hoyle's gaff was very much in the "I can't understand X therefore nobody else can", despite plenty of people understanding perfectly well and providing evidence. While you cannot develop a complex organism from shit, evolutionary theory doesn't specify that method. It is a gradual sifting of mutations, adaptations, recombinations and epigenetic changes within related organisms over many generations, through validating their fit against the organisms' environment, leading to the good changes largely being retained and expanded and the bad changes being discarded. It's the biological equivalent of the actual technological process which lead from iron chariots to the Concorde, although without conscious direction.
7) No it is not. Even Michael Behe the proposer of the nonsense of irreducible complexity has admitted under oath that it doesn't exist. Google Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
8) Evolution from less complex organisms.
9) No they don't. This is another case of "I don't understand X, therefore goddidit!"
10) See 9.

Again, please stop with the plagarising, either come up with your own nonsense, or properly attribute the nonsense of others.

---

<snipping the bullshit>

So to "support" your argument you quote mine from three eminent scientists who accept evolution, but who are trying to figure out ways of better understanding it, and proposing new hypotheses regarding abiogenesis (which may or may not be wrong). The fourth is an idiot who has been amply demonstrated to know sweet Fanny Adams about biology, never mind evolution.

Otangelo, if you were a moral being, you'd be ashamed of yourself for such shameless and blatant lying and libel.

[The Valkyrie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUr8yXeX4Lw

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. Unsubstantiated claim. Debunked, if I am correct, by physics.
2. If your first assertion is correct, then a deity also needs a creator.
3. Not according to facts I have read.
4. The universe isn't fine tuned. If it was there would be no threat to U.S. From space debris.
5. Provide proof, from scientific journals, to back up this assertion.
6. Debunked long ago.
7. Debunked long ago.
8. They evolved over billions of years.
9. Utter nonsense.
10. See 9.

YouTube videos are proof that someone made a YouTube video.

[The Architect Of Fate]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUr8yXeX4Lw

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.  Unsubstantiated claim.  Debunked, if I am correct, by physics.
2. If your first assertion is correct, then a deity also needs a creator.
3. Not according to facts I have read.
4.  The universe isn't fine tuned.  If it was there would be no threat to U.S. From space debris.
5.  Provide proof, from scientific journals, to back up this assertion.
6.  Debunked long ago.
7.  Debunked long ago.
8.  They evolved over billions of years.
9.  Utter nonsense.
10. See 9.

YouTube videos are proof that someone made a YouTube video.

For 5 he just quotes some people as if that alone does the job

[Paleophyte]

Any "god" that needs apologists to go around "proving" its existence is unworthy of my time, much less my worship.

---

1. Being cannot come from non-being

How many states of non-being have you observed?

[onlinebiker]

Any "god" that needs apologists to go around "proving" its existence is unworthy of my time, much less my worship.

---

1. Being cannot come from non-being

How many states of non-being have you observed?

No shit.

If you are going to worship a god - it would be nice to have one that actually shows up in person for the service.

But like the children of absentee fathers - true believers tend to praise their daddy even more than the dads (or deities) who actually show up.

If the guy ever really showed up - maybe then they'd finally figure out he's a misersble cocksucker.

[zebo-the-fat]

Fine tuned for life? 99.9999% of the universe would kill us in a second (too hot, too cold, no atmospere or toxic atmosphere, radiation ... need I go on?) Only parts of one small planet are "designed" for life

[onlinebiker]

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

[The Grand Nudger]

The fine tuning argument is even worse than it's initial incompetence would suggest, at least for a god. It asserts as a matter of the setup, that a god would have to design -anything- to be naturally compatible with it's favorite pets. That the state of the natural world had to be this way, for us to exist.

Why? God can magic up an entire universe, but nature has to be relied upon to incubate us? His almighty hands are tied on that one?

Well, if the god botherers insist, it must be true. Some god, some design.