Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

[Heyo]

I honestly tried to do a more extensive refutation. But you're making this REALLY hard. Every single one of your "premises" is in fact a claim that doesn't follow. Therefore your conclusion is flawed.

Your argument was so poorly constructed that my refutation is also extremely simplistic. Because i can't go deeper into such a flawed argument. Your premise 2 doesn't follow from 1, and 3 doesn't follow from 2. Therefore your conclusion is equivalent to my morning dump.

Here's how your argument looks like when reduced to its most base elements:

A.

B.

C.

Therefore D.

That's not how logic works.

I think you misunderstood the concept of the syllogism.
Premise 2 doesn't have to follow from premise 1.
They are both (independent) premises.

The syllogism given in the OP is, in fact, a valid syllogism.
It just isn't sound (on multiple levels).

3 Ways to Understand Syllogisms - wikiHow

 

[Darkstorn]

I think you misunderstood the concept of the syllogism.
Premise 2 doesn't have to follow from premise 1.
They are both (independent) premises.

The syllogism given in the OP is, in fact, a valid syllogism.
It just isn't sound (on multiple levels).

3 Ways to Understand Syllogisms - wikiHow

I don't think you understand syllogism: The conclusion still must naturally follow from all the premises, even if the premises don't follow from each other. Note: Number 3 is a conclusion, not premise.

 

[paarsurrey]

It's observable. Full stop.

Sure... you want to call it "fairies" or "Spaghetti Monster?" Doesn't matter what name we attach to it... it is still the description of an observable phenomenon has been found can be modeled and its effects predicted using mathematical principles. Do you have anything like that for "God?" No, you don't. Not observable in the first place, and absolutely no way to demonstrate, predict or model His behavior. This is getting tedious.

What we call gravity does, indeed, exist, and can be DEMONSTRATED at any current moment, nearly anywhere in the universe. All I have to do to evidence its existence here on Earth is drop something, call the effect that makes it attracted to Earth "gravity" and we're done with this silly little game. Now... do something similar to demonstrate your God. I DARE you.

Your thoughts on this matter are ridiculous. At this point I struggle to even care what you have to say further.

I'll admit we don't know the "why" behind gravity. There may not even be one. So yes, the answer to "why gravity exists" is "I don't know." So? Gravity itself? Just try claiming it doesn't exist. Just try. You will find yourself in conflict with behaviors that can be observed THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Give me a break.

Why is it that when some theists can't get their silly little way in an argument they try and DECONSTRUCT THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND OUR BODY OF KNOWLEDGE SURROUNDING ITS CONTENTS??! It is just so monumentally DUMB.

" I'll admit we don't know the "why" behind gravity."

Atheism don't know "why" behind gravity now, and earlier they didn't know "who" created gravity. Right, please?
Is it for everything in the Universe, please?

Regards

Regards

 

[Heyo]

I don't think you understand syllogism: The conclusion still must naturally follow from all the premises, even if the premises don't follow from each other. Note: Number 3 is a conclusion, not premise.

And you question the conclusion?
P1. A is either B, C or D.
P2. A is not B or C.
C. Therefore A is D.

I see no problem. If you still see one, draw the truth table.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, tell us what is "evidence" according to the "Atheism Method", please.
Regards

There is no "Atheism Method".

Try again, please.

 

[Darkstorn]

And you question the conclusion?
P1. A is either B, C or D.
P2. A is not B or C.
C. Therefore A is D.

I see no problem. If you still see one, draw the truth table.

I see no problem in what YOU are asserting here. But i think the argument in the OP is in fact an INVALID syllogism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

" I'll admit we don't know the "why" behind gravity."

Atheism don't know "why" behind gravity now, and earlier they didn't know "who" created gravity. Right, please?
Is it for everything in the Universe, please?

Regards

Regards

Your error is to assume a "who". If you want to claim a "who" you take on a burden of proof.

 

[Heyo]

I see no problem in what YOU are asserting here. But i think the argument in the OP is in fact an INVALID syllogism.

How do they differ?

 

[Darkstorn]

How do they differ?

His premises are untrue. Yours are not.

/E: Note: Your link shows this as an example of an invalid syllogism:

All dogs can fly. Fido is a dog.

Fido can fly.

 

[Heyo]

His premises are untrue. Yours are not.

/E: Note: Your link shows this as an example of an invalid syllogism:

All dogs can fly. Fido is a dog.

Fido can fly.

Read that section again. Especially:

"For instance, consider the syllogism: “All dogs can fly. Fido is a dog. Fido can fly.” This syllogism is logically valid, but since the major premise is untrue, the conclusion is clearly inaccurate and the syllogism is unsound."

 

[paarsurrey]

Your error is to assume a "who". If you want to claim a "who" you take on a burden of proof.

I understand that when Atheism are left with no reason they run to "burden of proof" as per the Atheist-Method refer post #159, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Darkstorn]

Read that section again. Especially:

"For instance, consider the syllogism: “All dogs can fly. Fido is a dog. Fido can fly.” This syllogism is logically valid, but since the major premise is untrue, the conclusion is clearly inaccurate and the syllogism is unsound."

Ho, you are in fact correct. I didn't realize the section continued beyond the example for even more examples. So it's not an invalid syllogism, but an unsound syllogism. Therefore my refutation is also flawed.

I should have said it's unsound rather than invalid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that when Atheism are left with no reason they run to "burden of proof" as per the Atheist-Method refer post #159, please. Right, please?

Regards

Nope, wrong, Try again.

If you do not understand something and ask proper questions they will be answered. When you include false assumptions you are likely to get rather short and curt corrections.

 

[Valjean]

Is one's discourse supported by Science/Scientific Method or Religion/Religious Method or one has one's own Method of discerning reality, please?
Regards

Paarsurry, PLEASE! Tell us what you mean by "Religious Method." Nobody understands what this method is.

The scientific method is a step-by-step method of investigating and testing how the world works.

1. What does religion investigate?
2. What steps are involved?
3. Do you form theorems? How do you test them?
4. Are beliefs ever discarded when new facts are discovered?

Please answer my questions. I don't understand how religion has a 'method'.

 

[Valjean]

So, one doesn't have a set Method of discerning reality/Truth, then, will one just criticize others, please?
Is it a reasonable approach, please?

Atheism is not a method of discerning or understanding reality. It doesn't investigate anything. It's just a lack of belief in one specific thing.

Our "criticism" is just pointing out incorrect facts or reasoning. I assume you're interested in truth and want to be right. Don't you want people to point out when you've made a logical error or drawn a conclusion from an unsupported fact?

"Reasonable" is exactly the correct word. Reason is what atheism is based on.
Do you believe in the Norse god Thor, Paarsurrey? Is your a-thorism a method of discerning reality? Is it a method at all?
This is an analogy to atheism, Paarsurrey. Do you see our point?

Regards.
__________________

Religious Method

It was read out with its application authored by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 in the Conference of Great Religions held at Lahore in 1896 in the then British India. The lecture titled " The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam" has since been translated in many world languages and is available online.
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf
The principle is elaborated in first two pages of it:
" It is necessary that a claim and the reasons in support of it must be set forth from a revealed book."

No. This is not necessary. It is necessary that claims be based on tangible facts and tested conclusions.
There are lots of scriptures claiming to be 'revealed'. How are we to discern which one is correct? I could claim The Chronicles of Narnia or the Tao te Ching were revealed scriptures.

This is just theology. It's preaching. Like most theology, it's based on unsupported claims and unreasonable conclusions.

 

[Valjean]

" I'll admit we don't know the "why" behind gravity."

Atheism don't know "why" behind gravity now, and earlier they didn't know "who" created gravity. Right, please?
Is it for everything in the Universe, please?

Regards

Regards

Atheism isn't a belief system, religion or science. It doesn't investigate anything. There is no how, why or who.

 

[Darkstorn]

Atheism isn't a belief system, religion or science. It doesn't investigate anything. There is no how, why or who.

I'm thinking we need to elect a "Grand Pope of Atheism" or something. Then at least the weird caricatures and straw men would apply and we could argue something else instead.

 

[Valjean]

I'm thinking we need to elect a "Grand Pope of Atheism" or something. Then at least the weird caricatures and straw men would apply and we could argue something else instead.

Aron Ra?

 

[Heyo]

I'm thinking we need to elect a "Grand Pope of Atheism" or something. Then at least the weird caricatures and straw men would apply and we could argue something else instead.

And he needs to have a funny hat!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm thinking we need to elect a "Grand Pope of Atheism" or something. Then at least the weird caricatures and straw men would apply and we could argue something else instead.

I have next weekend off.