Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A simple argument for God

johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Discuss.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 1:11:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Discuss.

Um... I don't meant to burst your bubble, but that argument doesn't actually argue for the existance of God...

It only argues we cannot create God...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 1:15:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 1:11:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Discuss.

Um... I don't meant to burst your bubble, but that argument doesn't actually argue for the existance of God...

It only argues we cannot create God...

If we can not create God, then how did we create God?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 1:52:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 1:15:43 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:11:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Discuss.

Um... I don't meant to burst your bubble, but that argument doesn't actually argue for the existance of God...

It only argues we cannot create God...


If we can not create God, then how did we create God?

We did? I don't see a God... In fact I don't see how we created a leprechuan either....
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 2:04:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Moreover the form of this argument is fallacious/invalid.

It appears to be in the form:

P1) All things that we cannot create are unimaginable
P2) God is unimaginable
C) We cannot create God

Which put into letter form:

P1) All P are M
P2) G is M
C) G is P

Which is an invalid AAA-3 mood syllogism, only AAA-1 type syllogisms are valid of the BARBARA type. It doesn't follow that G is necessarily P if G is M, since M is the superset and P is the subset.
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 3:19:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 2:04:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Moreover the form of this argument is fallacious/invalid.

It appears to be in the form:

P1) All things that we cannot create are unimaginable
P2) God is unimaginable
C) We cannot create God

Which put into letter form:

P1) All P * are M
P2) g is M
C) g* is P*

As you can see Envisage made a mistake, in Syllogistic Logic we take terms such as names in small case letters.
The fatty (who I love <3 more than life) is though correct, your argument fails the star-test validity. As you can see P does not connect with M properly with respect to g.

Which is an invalid AAA-3 mood syllogism, only AAA-1 type syllogisms are valid of the BARBARA type. It doesn't follow that G is necessarily P if G is M, since M is the superset and P is the subset.
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 3:19:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 2:04:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But
.
God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Moreover the form of this argument is fallacious/invalid.

It appears to be in the form:

P1) All things that we cannot create are unimaginable
P2) God is unimaginable
C) We cannot create God

Which put into letter form:

P1) All P * are M
P2) g is M
C) g* is P*

As you can see Envisage made a mistake, in Syllogistic Logic we take terms such as names in small case letters.
The fatty (who I love <3 more than life) is though correct, your argument fails the star-test validity. As you can see P does not connect with M properly with respect to g.

Which is an invalid AAA-3 mood syllogism, only AAA-1 type syllogisms are valid of the BARBARA type. It doesn't follow that G is necessarily P if G is M, since M is the superset and P is the subset.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 4:40:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 2:04:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Moreover the form of this argument is fallacious/invalid.

It appears to be in the form:

P1) All things that we cannot create are unimaginable
P2) God is unimaginable
C) We cannot create God

Which put into letter form:

P1) All P are M
P2) G is M
C) G is P

Which is an invalid AAA-3 mood syllogism, only AAA-1 type syllogisms are valid of the BARBARA type. It doesn't follow that G is necessarily P if G is M, since M is the superset and P is the subset.

I see somebody has been reading up on some logic. ;-)
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 4:45:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 1:15:43 PM, johnlubba wrote:
If we can not create God, then how did we create God?

This one is for all you logic worshipers, note the garbage in garbage out scenario of supposed logic. Here is absolute proof that logic, is not intrinsically the truth. Or even honest.

Mankind through out their human history has created their own gods of their own imaginations many times over, what planet are you from? Though that doesn"t prove there isn"t a God as in a Creator and Judge, but your statements are out of ignorance of a grade school level history.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 1:19:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 4:40:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 7/28/2014 2:04:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Moreover the form of this argument is fallacious/invalid.

It appears to be in the form:

P1) All things that we cannot create are unimaginable
P2) God is unimaginable
C) We cannot create God

Which put into letter form:

P1) All P are M
P2) G is M
C) G is P

Which is an invalid AAA-3 mood syllogism, only AAA-1 type syllogisms are valid of the BARBARA type. It doesn't follow that G is necessarily P if G is M, since M is the superset and P is the subset.

I see somebody has been reading up on some logic. ;-)

I guess you missed the rebuttal from Ajabi, swept right past it an seemed to validate Envisages so called logic.

I will once again repeat A quote to Envisage from Einstein.

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

R13; Albert Einstein
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 1:32:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 1:52:12 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:15:43 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:11:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Discuss.

Um... I don't meant to burst your bubble, but that argument doesn't actually argue for the existance of God...

It only argues we cannot create God...


If we can not create God, then how did we create God?

We did? I don't see a God... In fact I don't see how we created a leprechuan either....

You really don't get the point I am making, we can replicate the form of a leprechuan we can imagine what the form of a leprechuan looks like and we will all as a collective agree on what the form of a leprechuan should be, But we can not replicate the form of God although we can hold Him in our imagination, we are unable to replicate His form.

Simply put, God is the only entity we can imagine to be, but are unable to replicate in form.

Please respond in simple logic and not some weird anagram that is more confusing, If you can't explain it in laymans terms I am not really interested in your response.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 4:10:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 1:19:32 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/28/2014 4:40:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 7/28/2014 2:04:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Moreover the form of this argument is fallacious/invalid.

It appears to be in the form:

P1) All things that we cannot create are unimaginable
P2) God is unimaginable
C) We cannot create God

Which put into letter form:

P1) All P are M
P2) G is M
C) G is P

Which is an invalid AAA-3 mood syllogism, only AAA-1 type syllogisms are valid of the BARBARA type. It doesn't follow that G is necessarily P if G is M, since M is the superset and P is the subset.

I see somebody has been reading up on some logic. ;-)

I guess you missed the rebuttal from Ajabi, swept right past it an seemed to validate Envisages so called logic.

I will once again repeat A quote to Envisage from Einstein.



"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

R13; Albert Einstein

Ajabi agreed with me... The argument is invalid.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 4:41:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 4:10:21 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 1:19:32 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/28/2014 4:40:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 7/28/2014 2:04:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Moreover the form of this argument is fallacious/invalid.

It appears to be in the form:

P1) All things that we cannot create are unimaginable
P2) God is unimaginable
C) We cannot create God

Which put into letter form:

P1) All P are M
P2) G is M
C) G is P

Which is an invalid AAA-3 mood syllogism, only AAA-1 type syllogisms are valid of the BARBARA type. It doesn't follow that G is necessarily P if G is M, since M is the superset and P is the subset.

I see somebody has been reading up on some logic. ;-)

I guess you missed the rebuttal from Ajabi, swept right past it an seemed to validate Envisages so called logic.

I will once again repeat A quote to Envisage from Einstein.



"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

R13; Albert Einstein

Ajabi agreed with me... The argument is invalid.

Just because Abjab agrees it doesn't mean I understood anything so that defeats the purpose of your response

The argument makes no sense to me so it is useless in my opinion, try explaining it another way.

Exaplain things a way in which I told you I find difficult to understand ie Modus/Tollens doesn't make you look smart it makes you difficult to understand.

Notice I call it a simple argument so try giving a simple response.

Try and imagine and entity you can not replicate in form.

You can't therefore you can not explain how God became to be by way of peoples imagination.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 4:47:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 4:41:21 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:10:21 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 1:19:32 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/28/2014 4:40:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 7/28/2014 2:04:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Moreover the form of this argument is fallacious/invalid.

It appears to be in the form:

P1) All things that we cannot create are unimaginable
P2) God is unimaginable
C) We cannot create God

Which put into letter form:

P1) All P are M
P2) G is M
C) G is P

Which is an invalid AAA-3 mood syllogism, only AAA-1 type syllogisms are valid of the BARBARA type. It doesn't follow that G is necessarily P if G is M, since M is the superset and P is the subset.

I see somebody has been reading up on some logic. ;-)

I guess you missed the rebuttal from Ajabi, swept right past it an seemed to validate Envisages so called logic.

I will once again repeat A quote to Envisage from Einstein.



"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

R13; Albert Einstein

Ajabi agreed with me... The argument is invalid.


Just because Abjab agrees it doesn't mean I understood anything so that defeats the purpose of your response

The argument makes no sense to me so it is useless in my opinion, try explaining it another way.

Exaplain things a way in which I told you I find difficult to understand ie Modus/Tollens doesn't make you look smart it makes you difficult to understand.


Notice I call it a simple argument so try giving a simple response.

Try and imagine and entity you can not replicate in form.

You can't therefore you can not explain how God became to be by way of peoples imagination.

I really don't see what you or argument is then. You argue that God is the only imaginable thing that is uncreatable... And somehow that's special?

I honestly don't see how that follows, I am not even convinced that God is the only imaginable uncreatable 'thing' there is either. I can imagine 'nothing' but I can't create it, alternatively I can imagine a five dimensional spacetime, yet that is uncreatable too.

N.b. I was giving categorical syllogisms, check the below link if you want to learn to understand them, they are some of the most basic logic devices:
http://books.google.co.uk...
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:11:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 4:47:30 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:41:21 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:10:21 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 1:19:32 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/28/2014 4:40:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 7/28/2014 2:04:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Moreover the form of this argument is fallacious/invalid.

It appears to be in the form:

P1) All things that we cannot create are unimaginable
P2) God is unimaginable
C) We cannot create God

Which put into letter form:

P1) All P are M
P2) g is M
C) g is P

I think, Shaun, that the Syllogism will be something like this:
all T is U
g is U
Ergo: g is P

Crash that, you are right, you made a mistake in the case of the letter but you aright.
Jon this is what this means:
You say that all things which we cannot create are unimaginable. Lets use a logical technique and reverse this to make it: all things we can create are imaginable.
God is not imaginable,
therefore we cannot create God.
This becomes:
all T* is I
g is not I*
Ergo: g* is not T
There by changing the form we have made your argument logically valid.
Of course this in no way makes it logically sound, as in you have to prove your premises, but in this form if you prove both premises then the conclusion will logically follow.


Which is an invalid AAA-3 mood syllogism, only AAA-1 type syllogisms are valid of the BARBARA type. It doesn't follow that G is necessarily P if G is M, since M is the superset and P is the subset.

I see somebody has been reading up on some logic. ;-)

I guess you missed the rebuttal from Ajabi, swept right past it an seemed to validate Envisages so called logic.

I will once again repeat A quote to Envisage from Einstein.



"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

R13; Albert Einstein

Ajabi agreed with me... The argument is invalid.


Just because Abjab agrees it doesn't mean I understood anything so that defeats the purpose of your response

The argument makes no sense to me so it is useless in my opinion, try explaining it another way.

Exaplain things a way in which I told you I find difficult to understand ie Modus/Tollens doesn't make you look smart it makes you difficult to understand.


Notice I call it a simple argument so try giving a simple response.

Try and imagine and entity you can not replicate in form.

You can't therefore you can not explain how God became to be by way of peoples imagination.

I really don't see what you or argument is then. You argue that God is the only imaginable thing that is uncreatable... And somehow that's special?

I honestly don't see how that follows, I am not even convinced that God is the only imaginable uncreatable 'thing' there is either. I can imagine 'nothing' but I can't create it, alternatively I can imagine a five dimensional spacetime, yet that is uncreatable too.

N.b. I was giving categorical syllogisms, check the below link if you want to learn to understand them, they are some of the most basic logic devices:
http://books.google.co.uk...
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:14:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think jon that you are very close to something. This resembles my argument quite a bit. I do however think you are making some mistakes and are over looking some points. Perhaps the first part of the Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume may help things a bit.

Your argument should the that we cannot imagine a God, while we can imagine leprechauns, et cetera.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:24:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:14:27 AM, Ajabi wrote:
I think jon that you are very close to something. This resembles my argument quite a bit. I do however think you are making some mistakes and are over looking some points. Perhaps the first part of the Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume may help things a bit.

Your argument should the that we cannot imagine a God, while we can imagine leprechauns, et cetera.

You both misundersatnd me, I am not saying things we can not create are unimaginable, I am saying we can replicate anything we can imagine, even a five dimensional spacetime, at least virtually, that is still a replication of some sort. Although I have been mis-understood again, because a five dimensional spacetime is not actually an entity.

God is the only entity we imagine to be that we have no replication for, even the devil has some form we can replicate such as the common perception of having two horns and looking demonic, but there is no common held perception of what Gods form is, although many people imagine God to be.
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:26:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:24:41 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:14:27 AM, Ajabi wrote:
I think jon that you are very close to something. This resembles my argument quite a bit. I do however think you are making some mistakes and are over looking some points. Perhaps the first part of the Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume may help things a bit.

Your argument should the that we cannot imagine a God, while we can imagine leprechauns, et cetera.


You both misundersatnd me, I am not saying things we can not create are unimaginable, I am saying we can replicate anything we can imagine, even a five dimensional spacetime, at least virtually, that is still a replication of some sort. Although I have been mis-understood again, because a five dimensional spacetime is not actually an entity.

God is the only entity we imagine to be that we have no replication for, even the devil has some form we can replicate such as the common perception of having two horns and looking demonic, but there is no common held perception of what Gods form is, although many people imagine God to be.

Morgan Freeman?

More importantly do not use the word imagine, if we can imagine God, even without replicating Him, he is a false concepts. Imagination is that faculty of the mind which takes ideas of memory, twists and turns them in a variety of ways to form new ideas.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:36:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 4:47:30 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:41:21 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:10:21 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 1:19:32 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/28/2014 4:40:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 7/28/2014 2:04:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Moreover the form of this argument is fallacious/invalid.

It appears to be in the form:

P1) All things that we cannot create are unimaginable
P2) God is unimaginable
C) We cannot create God

Which put into letter form:

P1) All P are M
P2) G is M
C) G is P

Which is an invalid AAA-3 mood syllogism, only AAA-1 type syllogisms are valid of the BARBARA type. It doesn't follow that G is necessarily P if G is M, since M is the superset and P is the subset.

I see somebody has been reading up on some logic. ;-)

I guess you missed the rebuttal from Ajabi, swept right past it an seemed to validate Envisages so called logic.

I will once again repeat A quote to Envisage from Einstein.



"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

R13; Albert Einstein

Ajabi agreed with me... The argument is invalid.


Just because Abjab agrees it doesn't mean I understood anything so that defeats the purpose of your response

The argument makes no sense to me so it is useless in my opinion, try explaining it another way.

Exaplain things a way in which I told you I find difficult to understand ie Modus/Tollens doesn't make you look smart it makes you difficult to understand.


Notice I call it a simple argument so try giving a simple response.

Try and imagine and entity you can not replicate in form.

You can't therefore you can not explain how God became to be by way of peoples imagination.

I really don't see what you or argument is then. You argue that God is the only imaginable thing that is uncreatable... And somehow that's special?

You failed to understand my argument, I said entity not thing,

I honestly don't see how that follows, I am not even convinced that God is the only imaginable uncreatable 'thing' there is either. I can imagine 'nothing' but I can't create it,,

Actually you can not imagine nothing as the thought of nothing is contained by something which is the thought of nothing. which is actually something, So the nothing you are actually imagining is actually a thought which is something,

alternatively I can imagine a five dimensional spacetime, yet that is uncreatable too.

A five dimensional spacetime is at least replicable in virtuality but maybe not in reality.

N.b. I was giving categorical syllogisms, check the below link if you want to learn to understand them, they are some of the most basic logic devices:
http://books.google.co.uk...

"Analysis and synthesis ordinarily clarify matters for us about as much as taking a Swiss watch apart and dumping its wheels, springs, hands, threads, pivots, screws and gears into a layman's hands for reassembling, clarifies a watch to a layman."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:40:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:36:38 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:47:30 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:41:21 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:10:21 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 1:19:32 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/28/2014 4:40:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 7/28/2014 2:04:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Moreover the form of this argument is fallacious/invalid.

It appears to be in the form:

P1) All things that we cannot create are unimaginable
P2) God is unimaginable
C) We cannot create God

Which put into letter form:

P1) All P are M
P2) G is M
C) G is P

Which is an invalid AAA-3 mood syllogism, only AAA-1 type syllogisms are valid of the BARBARA type. It doesn't follow that G is necessarily P if G is M, since M is the superset and P is the subset.

I see somebody has been reading up on some logic. ;-)

I guess you missed the rebuttal from Ajabi, swept right past it an seemed to validate Envisages so called logic.

I will once again repeat A quote to Envisage from Einstein.



"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

R13; Albert Einstein

Ajabi agreed with me... The argument is invalid.


Just because Abjab agrees it doesn't mean I understood anything so that defeats the purpose of your response

The argument makes no sense to me so it is useless in my opinion, try explaining it another way.

Exaplain things a way in which I told you I find difficult to understand ie Modus/Tollens doesn't make you look smart it makes you difficult to understand.


Notice I call it a simple argument so try giving a simple response.

Try and imagine and entity you can not replicate in form.

You can't therefore you can not explain how God became to be by way of peoples imagination.

I really don't see what you or argument is then. You argue that God is the only imaginable thing that is uncreatable... And somehow that's special?

You failed to understand my argument, I said entity not thing,

I honestly don't see how that follows, I am not even convinced that God is the only imaginable uncreatable 'thing' there is either. I can imagine 'nothing' but I can't create it,,


Actually you can not imagine nothing as the thought of nothing is contained by something which is the thought of nothing. which is actually something, So the nothing you are actually imagining is actually a thought which is something,

alternatively I can imagine a five dimensional spacetime, yet that is uncreatable too.

A five dimensional spacetime is at least replicable in virtuality but maybe not in reality.

N.b. I was giving categorical syllogisms, check the below link if you want to learn to understand them, they are some of the most basic logic devices:
http://books.google.co.uk...


"Analysis and synthesis ordinarily clarify matters for us about as much as taking a Swiss watch apart and dumping its wheels, springs, hands, threads, pivots, screws and gears into a layman's hands for reassembling, clarifies a watch to a layman."

Ok... Given that this is clearly not an argument for God's existance, and at best an argument for some strange aspect of god... I don't see the worth in pursuing this...

This would be a lot easier if you give your argument in premise conclusion form, which should not be very hard.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:40:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:26:58 AM, Ajabi wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:24:41 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:14:27 AM, Ajabi wrote:
I think jon that you are very close to something. This resembles my argument quite a bit. I do however think you are making some mistakes and are over looking some points. Perhaps the first part of the Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume may help things a bit.

Your argument should the that we cannot imagine a God, while we can imagine leprechauns, et cetera.


You both misundersatnd me, I am not saying things we can not create are unimaginable, I am saying we can replicate anything we can imagine, even a five dimensional spacetime, at least virtually, that is still a replication of some sort. Although I have been mis-understood again, because a five dimensional spacetime is not actually an entity.

God is the only entity we imagine to be that we have no replication for, even the devil has some form we can replicate such as the common perception of having two horns and looking demonic, but there is no common held perception of what Gods form is, although many people imagine God to be.

Morgan Freeman?

More importantly do not use the word imagine, if we can imagine God, even without replicating Him, he is a false concepts. Imagination is that faculty of the mind which takes ideas of memory, twists and turns them in a variety of ways to form new ideas.

Imagination is everything,

'Imagination is more important than knowledge.

- Albert Einstein

First comes thought; then organization of that thought, into ideas and plans; then transformation of those plans into reality. The beginning, as you will observe, is in your imagination.

Napoleon Hill
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:43:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:40:45 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:26:58 AM, Ajabi wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:24:41 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:14:27 AM, Ajabi wrote:
I think jon that you are very close to something. This resembles my argument quite a bit. I do however think you are making some mistakes and are over looking some points. Perhaps the first part of the Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume may help things a bit.

Your argument should the that we cannot imagine a God, while we can imagine leprechauns, et cetera.


You both misundersatnd me, I am not saying things we can not create are unimaginable, I am saying we can replicate anything we can imagine, even a five dimensional spacetime, at least virtually, that is still a replication of some sort. Although I have been mis-understood again, because a five dimensional spacetime is not actually an entity.

God is the only entity we imagine to be that we have no replication for, even the devil has some form we can replicate such as the common perception of having two horns and looking demonic, but there is no common held perception of what Gods form is, although many people imagine God to be.

Morgan Freeman?

More importantly do not use the word imagine, if we can imagine God, even without replicating Him, he is a false concepts. Imagination is that faculty of the mind which takes ideas of memory, twists and turns them in a variety of ways to form new ideas.

Imagination is everything,



'Imagination is more important than knowledge.

- Albert Einstein


First comes thought; then organization of that thought, into ideas and plans; then transformation of those plans into reality. The beginning, as you will observe, is in your imagination.

Napoleon Hill

...and Einstein and Hill were philosopher, right. Seriously? Get over it Jon, in philosophy you need philosophy. Not a scientist, not anyone else.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:45:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:24:41 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:14:27 AM, Ajabi wrote:
I think jon that you are very close to something. This resembles my argument quite a bit. I do however think you are making some mistakes and are over looking some points. Perhaps the first part of the Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume may help things a bit.

Your argument should the that we cannot imagine a God, while we can imagine leprechauns, et cetera.


You both misundersatnd me, I am not saying things we can not create are unimaginable, I am saying we can replicate anything we can imagine, even a five dimensional spacetime, at least virtually, that is still a replication of some sort. Although I have been mis-understood again, because a five dimensional spacetime is not actually an entity.

There is probably a reason why nobody gets your argument. Please give it concisely and actually state the conclusion you are trying to make.

You have left 'God' undefined, 'replicate' undefined and I imagine other stuff undefined too. God can mean literally anything, and there are many replications of Gods as you already know. The argument is a train wreck right now....

God is the only entity we imagine to be that we have no replication for, even the devil has some form we can replicate such as the common perception of having two horns and looking demonic, but there is no common held perception of what Gods form is, although many people imagine God to be.

... And what does that prove?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:53:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:40:35 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:36:38 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:47:30 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:41:21 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:10:21 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 1:19:32 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/28/2014 4:40:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 7/28/2014 2:04:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Moreover the form of this argument is fallacious/invalid.

It appears to be in the form:

P1) All things that we cannot create are unimaginable
P2) God is unimaginable
C) We cannot create God

Which put into letter form:

P1) All P are M
P2) G is M
C) G is P

Which is an invalid AAA-3 mood syllogism, only AAA-1 type syllogisms are valid of the BARBARA type. It doesn't follow that G is necessarily P if G is M, since M is the superset and P is the subset.

I see somebody has been reading up on some logic. ;-)

I guess you missed the rebuttal from Ajabi, swept right past it an seemed to validate Envisages so called logic.

I will once again repeat A quote to Envisage from Einstein.



"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

R13; Albert Einstein

Ajabi agreed with me... The argument is invalid.


Just because Abjab agrees it doesn't mean I understood anything so that defeats the purpose of your response

The argument makes no sense to me so it is useless in my opinion, try explaining it another way.

Exaplain things a way in which I told you I find difficult to understand ie Modus/Tollens doesn't make you look smart it makes you difficult to understand.


Notice I call it a simple argument so try giving a simple response.

Try and imagine and entity you can not replicate in form.

You can't therefore you can not explain how God became to be by way of peoples imagination.

I really don't see what you or argument is then. You argue that God is the only imaginable thing that is uncreatable... And somehow that's special?

You failed to understand my argument, I said entity not thing,

I honestly don't see how that follows, I am not even convinced that God is the only imaginable uncreatable 'thing' there is either. I can imagine 'nothing' but I can't create it,,


Actually you can not imagine nothing as the thought of nothing is contained by something which is the thought of nothing. which is actually something, So the nothing you are actually imagining is actually a thought which is something,

alternatively I can imagine a five dimensional spacetime, yet that is uncreatable too.

A five dimensional spacetime is at least replicable in virtuality but maybe not in reality.

N.b. I was giving categorical syllogisms, check the below link if you want to learn to understand them, they are some of the most basic logic devices:
http://books.google.co.uk...


"Analysis and synthesis ordinarily clarify matters for us about as much as taking a Swiss watch apart and dumping its wheels, springs, hands, threads, pivots, screws and gears into a layman's hands for reassembling, clarifies a watch to a layman."

Ok... Given that this is clearly not an argument for God's existance, and at best an argument for some strange aspect of god... I don't see the worth in pursuing this...

This would be a lot easier if you give your argument in premise conclusion form, which should not be very hard.

Deep down you know God exists just like most of us do.

That is my only argument, Do you think that everything is just randomly put together just by pure luck and we just popped into existence. That is such a laughable concept I am actually at a loss for words for some atheists. Keep on denying the existence of God and deny the greatest gift you could ever recieve. that is knowing God is the intelligence behind the creation.

Anyway I will not pursue this anymore either as I know full well that the vast numbers of atheists will not convert by debating alone, althogh I have converted my fair share in my time, I do not wish to go through the streneous efforts to do so.

And it took no syllogisms.

Off to work now, take care.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:55:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:43:25 AM, Ajabi wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:40:45 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:26:58 AM, Ajabi wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:24:41 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:14:27 AM, Ajabi wrote:
I think jon that you are very close to something. This resembles my argument quite a bit. I do however think you are making some mistakes and are over looking some points. Perhaps the first part of the Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume may help things a bit.

Your argument should the that we cannot imagine a God, while we can imagine leprechauns, et cetera.


You both misundersatnd me, I am not saying things we can not create are unimaginable, I am saying we can replicate anything we can imagine, even a five dimensional spacetime, at least virtually, that is still a replication of some sort. Although I have been mis-understood again, because a five dimensional spacetime is not actually an entity.

God is the only entity we imagine to be that we have no replication for, even the devil has some form we can replicate such as the common perception of having two horns and looking demonic, but there is no common held perception of what Gods form is, although many people imagine God to be.

Morgan Freeman?

More importantly do not use the word imagine, if we can imagine God, even without replicating Him, he is a false concepts. Imagination is that faculty of the mind which takes ideas of memory, twists and turns them in a variety of ways to form new ideas.

Imagination is everything,



'Imagination is more important than knowledge.

- Albert Einstein


First comes thought; then organization of that thought, into ideas and plans; then transformation of those plans into reality. The beginning, as you will observe, is in your imagination.

Napoleon Hill

...and Einstein and Hill were philosopher, right. Seriously? Get over it Jon, in philosophy you need philosophy. Not a scientist, not anyone else.

Actually Einstien was one of the greatest scientists as well as a great philosopher and Hill was just a great inspirational man. But his point stands.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:58:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:45:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:24:41 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:14:27 AM, Ajabi wrote:
I think jon that you are very close to something. This resembles my argument quite a bit. I do however think you are making some mistakes and are over looking some points. Perhaps the first part of the Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume may help things a bit.

Your argument should the that we cannot imagine a God, while we can imagine leprechauns, et cetera.


You both misundersatnd me, I am not saying things we can not create are unimaginable, I am saying we can replicate anything we can imagine, even a five dimensional spacetime, at least virtually, that is still a replication of some sort. Although I have been mis-understood again, because a five dimensional spacetime is not actually an entity.

There is probably a reason why nobody gets your argument. Please give it concisely and actually state the conclusion you are trying to make.

You have left 'God' undefined, 'replicate' undefined and I imagine other stuff undefined too. God can mean literally anything, and there are many replications of Gods as you already know. The argument is a train wreck right now....

You want me to define replicate, lol Also read my very first argument, everybody can agree what a fairy looks like or a unicorn or a monster. geez

I have to go


God is the only entity we imagine to be that we have no replication for, even the devil has some form we can replicate such as the common perception of having two horns and looking demonic, but there is no common held perception of what Gods form is, although many people imagine God to be.

... And what does that prove?

Where did the idea of God come from if nobody is able to replicate His form?

It's that simple

I have to go, by for now
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 5:58:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:55:13 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:43:25 AM, Ajabi wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:40:45 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:26:58 AM, Ajabi wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:24:41 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:14:27 AM, Ajabi wrote:
I think jon that you are very close to something. This resembles my argument quite a bit. I do however think you are making some mistakes and are over looking some points. Perhaps the first part of the Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume may help things a bit.

Your argument should the that we cannot imagine a God, while we can imagine leprechauns, et cetera.


You both misundersatnd me, I am not saying things we can not create are unimaginable, I am saying we can replicate anything we can imagine, even a five dimensional spacetime, at least virtually, that is still a replication of some sort. Although I have been mis-understood again, because a five dimensional spacetime is not actually an entity.

God is the only entity we imagine to be that we have no replication for, even the devil has some form we can replicate such as the common perception of having two horns and looking demonic, but there is no common held perception of what Gods form is, although many people imagine God to be.

Morgan Freeman?

More importantly do not use the word imagine, if we can imagine God, even without replicating Him, he is a false concepts. Imagination is that faculty of the mind which takes ideas of memory, twists and turns them in a variety of ways to form new ideas.

Imagination is everything,



'Imagination is more important than knowledge.

- Albert Einstein


First comes thought; then organization of that thought, into ideas and plans; then transformation of those plans into reality. The beginning, as you will observe, is in your imagination.

Napoleon Hill

...and Einstein and Hill were philosopher, right. Seriously? Get over it Jon, in philosophy you need philosophy. Not a scientist, not anyone else.


Actually Einstien was one of the greatest scientists as well as a great philosopher and Hill was just a great inspirational man. But his point stands.

Einstein was an idiot in anything outside Physics.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 6:24:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:58:45 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:45:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:24:41 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:14:27 AM, Ajabi wrote:
I think jon that you are very close to something. This resembles my argument quite a bit. I do however think you are making some mistakes and are over looking some points. Perhaps the first part of the Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume may help things a bit.

Your argument should the that we cannot imagine a God, while we can imagine leprechauns, et cetera.


You both misundersatnd me, I am not saying things we can not create are unimaginable, I am saying we can replicate anything we can imagine, even a five dimensional spacetime, at least virtually, that is still a replication of some sort. Although I have been mis-understood again, because a five dimensional spacetime is not actually an entity.

There is probably a reason why nobody gets your argument. Please give it concisely and actually state the conclusion you are trying to make.

You have left 'God' undefined, 'replicate' undefined and I imagine other stuff undefined too. God can mean literally anything, and there are many replications of Gods as you already know. The argument is a train wreck right now....


You want me to define replicate, lol

Yes. Philosophical arguments need to remain consistant with how they use their terminology. Replicate to me at first glance is the physical reproduction of something, which is why I gave you examples of stuff we cannot physically reproduce.

Every time I gave such an example you hand waved it stating I misunderstand. Well bloody define the terminology you are using and make a concise argument so I can understand it! If you take Einstein's quote to heart then you are just as obligated to, it works both ways.

Also read my very first argument, everybody can agree what a fairy looks like or a unicorn or a monster. geez

Ok... What's your point?!

I have to go


God is the only entity we imagine to be that we have no replication for, even the devil has some form we can replicate such as the common perception of having two horns and looking demonic, but there is no common held perception of what Gods form is, although many people imagine God to be.

... And what does that prove?

Where did the idea of God come from if nobody is able to replicate His form?

Your argument is so laden with undefined terminology and I am guessing a few equivocations that I am not sure there is a correct answer to that

Your question presupposes:

1. We have an idea of God
2. The origin of the idea has something to do with it's replication

Your argument right now is a complete non sequitur.

It's that simple

For the love of god formalize your argument, this is a ohilosophy forum after all.

I have to go, by for now
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 6:30:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 5:53:13 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:40:35 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 5:36:38 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:47:30 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:41:21 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/29/2014 4:10:21 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/29/2014 1:19:32 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/28/2014 4:40:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 7/28/2014 2:04:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/28/2014 1:08:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
We can not imagine something we can not create.

We can imagine non existent entities such as monsters, fairy's, leprechaun's, ect, ect,,,
And we can create them at least in replica form. Everybody would agree on the replica form of Santa Claus or a monster or a fairy.

But

God is the only entity we can imagine to exist but are unable to replicate and also agree on any such replication.

Moreover the form of this argument is fallacious/invalid.

It appears to be in the form:

P1) All things that we cannot create are unimaginable
P2) God is unimaginable
C) We cannot create God

Which put into letter form:

P1) All P are M
P2) G is M
C) G is P

Which is an invalid AAA-3 mood syllogism, only AAA-1 type syllogisms are valid of the BARBARA type. It doesn't follow that G is necessarily P if G is M, since M is the superset and P is the subset.

I see somebody has been reading up on some logic. ;-)

I guess you missed the rebuttal from Ajabi, swept right past it an seemed to validate Envisages so called logic.

I will once again repeat A quote to Envisage from Einstein.



"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

R13; Albert Einstein

Ajabi agreed with me... The argument is invalid.


Just because Abjab agrees it doesn't mean I understood anything so that defeats the purpose of your response

The argument makes no sense to me so it is useless in my opinion, try explaining it another way.

Exaplain things a way in which I told you I find difficult to understand ie Modus/Tollens doesn't make you look smart it makes you difficult to understand.


Notice I call it a simple argument so try giving a simple response.

Try and imagine and entity you can not replicate in form.

You can't therefore you can not explain how God became to be by way of peoples imagination.

I really don't see what you or argument is then. You argue that God is the only imaginable thing that is uncreatable... And somehow that's special?

You failed to understand my argument, I said entity not thing,

I honestly don't see how that follows, I am not even convinced that God is the only imaginable uncreatable 'thing' there is either. I can imagine 'nothing' but I can't create it,,


Actually you can not imagine nothing as the thought of nothing is contained by something which is the thought of nothing. which is actually something, So the nothing you are actually imagining is actually a thought which is something,

alternatively I can imagine a five dimensional spacetime, yet that is uncreatable too.

A five dimensional spacetime is at least replicable in virtuality but maybe not in reality.

N.b. I was giving categorical syllogisms, check the below link if you want to learn to understand them, they are some of the most basic logic devices:
http://books.google.co.uk...


"Analysis and synthesis ordinarily clarify matters for us about as much as taking a Swiss watch apart and dumping its wheels, springs, hands, threads, pivots, screws and gears into a layman's hands for reassembling, clarifies a watch to a layman."

Ok... Given that this is clearly not an argument for God's existance, and at best an argument for some strange aspect of god... I don't see the worth in pursuing this...

This would be a lot easier if you give your argument in premise conclusion form, which should not be very hard.


Deep down you know God exists just like most of us do.

You do realise it's quite insulting to assert what someone knows, right? You don't see me going around saying deep down everyone knows God is a fairy tale.

That is my only argument, Do you think that everything is just randomly put together just by pure luck and we just popped into existence. That is such a laughable concept I am actually at a loss for words for some atheists. Keep on denying the existence of God and deny the greatest gift you could ever recieve. that is knowing God is the intelligence behind the creation.

I have debated this extensively from both sides, as you well know. So I hardly see that as anything resembling an argument.

Anyway I will not pursue this anymore either as I know full well that the vast numbers of atheists will not convert by debating alone, althogh I have converted my fair share in my time, I do not wish to go through the streneous efforts to do so.

Same applies to me with theists, but again you don't see me ranting about it...

And it took no syllogisms.

Off to work now, take care.