If God becomes assumed, He must be accepted. Thus, any agnostic is Theist.

[questfortruth]

What you did was a wrong as if I would be if I claimed that all theists were idiots.

The atheists are very weak in will power: "Hawaii missile-scare fills churches, sends confession lines out the door" January 18, 2018 (LifeSiteNews), Hawaii missile-scare fills churches, sends confession lines out the door

 

[questfortruth]

Yes, if you assume an omniscient being exists, you can prove an omniscient being exists. How is that not circular?

Aren't there assumptions in proofs, that these proofs prove in the end? If No, then my proof is special and unique, but not wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The atheists are very weak in will power: "Hawaii missile-scare fills churches, sends confession lines out the door" January 18, 2018 (LifeSiteNews), Hawaii missile-scare fills churches, sends confession lines out the door

More libel. What makes you think that those people were atheists? There are countless more weak Christians. Once again I don't lie about Christians and claim that they are all idiots. Why are you trying to make false claims about atheists?

 

[questfortruth]

(it knows everything, including knowing it knows everything, including knowing it knows it knows everything and on ad infinitum)?

No, there are two knowledges of God: to know all and know, that you know all. No infinite chain.

 

[questfortruth]

More libel. What makes you think that those people were atheists? There are countless more weak Christians. Once again I don't lie about Christians and claim that they are all idiots. Why are you trying to make false claims about atheists?

The Atheists do not have Free Will, because they deny it. So, they have exactly zero of will power. Correct?

 

[LuisDantas]

It is threads like this that make the fee of being an ignostic apatheist worth it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aren't there assumptions in proofs, that these proofs prove in the end? If No, then my proof is special and unique, but not wrong.

Assumptions of those sorts are not allowed in proofs. You are attempting to make a logical argument, but since it is based upon a premise that you cannot support it fails.

The Atheists do not have Free Will, because they deny it. So, they have exactly zero of will power. Correct?

Most theists do not believe in free will. Is your God omniscient and omnipotent? Then for you to believe in free will is illogical. Claiming that God is omniscient and omnipotent is a rejection of free will. Many atheists doubt that free will exists too, but for different reasons. And no, free will has nothing to do with will power. Your logic is non-existent.

 

[Left Coast]

No, somebody is hallucinating! Look how simple: Let us assume, that Omniscient exists. Thus, He must know own Existence. Thus, Existence of Omniscient is part of Omniscience.

If an omniscient being exists, it would know it exists. Yes, that's nothing to write home about.
Now, what evidence do you have that such a being actually exists?

 

[HonestJoe]

Aren't there assumptions in proofs, that these proofs prove in the end? If No, then my proof is special and unique, but not wrong.

Logical proofs can include assumptions but if the assumption is essentially the same thing as the conclusion, the logical proof is meaningless. Also, if you have no logical basis for the assumptions to even be possible, let alone likely, the entire thing becomes a fairly meaningless academic exercise.

No, there are two knowledges of God: to know all and know, that you know all. No infinite chain.

This isn’t specific to God, just a general comment about the concept of omnipotence. It is self-referential in that to know everything, you'd also need to know that you know each and everything, including about your own knowledge of each of those things.

I know that 1+1=2
I know that I know 1+1=2
I know that I know that I know 1+1=2
I know that I know that I know that I know 1+1=2
I know that I know that I know that I know that I know 1+1=2
I know that I know that I know that I know that I know that I know 1+1=2 …

It never ends.

You’re free to debate this potential issue with omnipotence and might even come up with a logical way around it but I don’t think you can legitimately dismiss it out of hand because you don’t like it.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Theorem of Theology:

If God becomes assumed, He must be accepted. Thus, any agnostic is Theist.

Proof of Theorem:

Let us assume, that a X knows everything. Thus, this X knows about the existence of himself. Now, because X knows everything, and he knows about existence of himself, then the Existence of X is knowledge.

Let us assume, that Omniscient one exists. Thus, he knows about the existence of himself. Now, because Omniscient one knows everything, and he knows about existence of himself, then the Existence of Omniscient one is knowledge.

The DNA, design, and Laws in Nature is Information. Thus, it must have source.

The set of Natural Laws is as much complex as the Nature itself. Where the design of Laws came from? Naturalist would say, that the Laws of Nature simply have always existed. But he is wrong. The Nature has started, there was Virtual Big Bang. Thus, Laws of Nature have origin.

my argumentation has no circular element.

SAME CIRCULAR FAILED PREMISE YOU POSTED THE OTHER DAY.

Same stuff, second day.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Theorem of Theology:

If God becomes assumed, He must be accepted. Thus, any agnostic is Theist.

Proof of Theorem:

Let us assume, that a X knows everything. Thus, this X knows about the existence of himself. Now, because X knows everything, and he knows about existence of himself, then the Existence of X is knowledge.

Let us assume, that Omniscient one exists. Thus, he knows about the existence of himself. Now, because Omniscient one knows everything, and he knows about existence of himself, then the Existence of Omniscient one is knowledge.

The DNA, design, and Laws in Nature is Information. Thus, it must have source.

The set of Natural Laws is as much complex as the Nature itself. Where the design of Laws came from? Naturalist would say, that the Laws of Nature simply have always existed. But he is wrong. The Nature has started, there was Virtual Big Bang. Thus, Laws of Nature have origin.

my argumentation has no circular element.

If the Invisible Pink Unicorn is Assumed, She is Real.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn knows Everything. Therefore? She knows she exists. She is Omniscient.

In the Design Of Her Magic Horn? There was Information-- thus it must have a Source.

The Set Of Natural Unicorn Laws are Complex-- for did not the Invisible Pink Unicorn Fart The Very Cosmos into Existence?

YES! That was the Big Fart or the Big Bang.

Where did the Invisible Pink Unicorn Come From, you ask? Easy! One Day, she had eaten a particularly bad bag of fruit flavored miniature marshmallows, which have Her a bit of Indigestion.

And she had to BELCH. And What A Belch It Was! She Burped So Loud And So Long? She actually burped back in time-- and caused herself to suddenly appear!

The Invisible Pink Unicorn was her own cause!

Amazing! Stupendous! Magnificent! Breath-taking! And no weak patch just over Her right breast-bone, either!

(there will be no falling for that stupid black arrow for the IPU, let me telly YOU, I don't care how good that Bard is at playing Cowboys and Indians! Barrel-rider my Invisible Pink Butt!)

 

[questfortruth]

SAME CIRCULAR FAILED PREMISE YOU POSTED THE OTHER DAY.

Same stuff, second day.

No, milord, I have no circular element:

1. Assumption: some human knows all that is possible to know.

2. Therefore this assumingly Omniscient human must know, that he exists.

3. Therefore, there is knowledge that such human exists.

4. Therefore, our assumption has been confirmed.

 

[questfortruth]

If the Invisible Pink Unicorn is Assumed, She is Real.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn knows Everything. Therefore? She knows she exists. She is Omniscient.

In the Design Of Her Magic Horn? There was Information-- thus it must have a Source.

The Set Of Natural Unicorn Laws are Complex-- for did not the Invisible Pink Unicorn Fart The Very Cosmos into Existence?

YES! That was the Big Fart or the Big Bang. good that Bard is at playing Cowboys and Indians! Barrel-rider my Invisible Pink Butt!)

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy" Matthew 26:65 KJV

 

[HonestJoe]

4. Therefore, our assumption has been confirmed.

A logical proof is not designed to prove its own assumptions. It is intended to provide logical proof for a separately defined hypothesis within the context of the assumptions.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No, milord, I have no circular element:

1. Assumption: some human knows all that is possible to know.

2. Therefore this assumingly Omniscient human must know, that he exists.

3. Therefore, there is knowledge that such human exists.

4. Therefore, our assumption has been confirmed.

Circular, as always.

Sorry. Mayhap you need to re-examine the word "circular"?

Here's a clue: Bootstrapping.

Here's another: Lifting yourself up by your own boot-straps.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No, milord, I have no circular element:

1. Assumption: some human knows all that is possible to know.

2. Therefore this assumingly Omniscient human must know, that he exists.

3. Therefore, there is knowledge that such human exists.

4. Therefore, our assumption has been confirmed.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn knows all that is possible to know
The Invisible Pink Unicorn therefore knows that She exists
Therefore? There is Knowledge that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.
Therefore? The Universe was Created by the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

See?

 

[Altfish]

Thus, there are no atheists in Wars.

The actual phrase is "There are no atheists in Foxholes" - it has of course been debunked many times.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy" Matthew 26:65 KJV

The Attendants of the Invisible Pink Unicorn have Heard Your Blasphemy.

She, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Knows--but She Is Superior in her Compassion so She Pretends To Not See-- for your sake.

But Her Attendants See: And they give you a very sharp look. And also, a pointed finger. And a Frown-- make no mistake, that is a very Frownie-Frown. You'll know, that you've been Frowned At.

Book Of IPU, Chapter 27, verses 13 through 4.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy" Matthew 26:65 KJV

 

[questfortruth]

The Invisible Pink Unicorn knows all that is possible to know
The Invisible Pink Unicorn therefore knows that She exists
Therefore? There is Knowledge that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.
Therefore? The Universe was Created by the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

See?

Some human knows more, some knows less. Let us find the maximum of knowledge. I have no circular element:

1. Hypothesis: some human knows all.

2. Among his knowledge is knowledge of own existence.

3. Therefore, there is knowledge that such human exists.

4. Therefore, our hypothesis has been proven.