10 Syllogistic arguments for Gods existence

10 Syllogistic arguments for Gods existence

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

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2896-10-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
Adonai888 said,
  1. Being cannot come from non-being 0:11

That logic would also apply to God. If God can be exempt from that logic, so can any other form of causal processes.
2. Who created the creator 0:37
Precisely. Who or what created the creator? Every answer to that question can also apply to any other causal process.
3. The laws of physics point to a creator 1:33
No they don't. They point to a creative process, which can be applied to other causal mathematical imperatives other than a God.
4. Fine-tuning of the universe points to a fine-tuner 2:11
No, it doesn't. It points to all matter in the universe is a result of mathematical physical processes, not the other way around.
5. Abiogenesis research has failed 3:06
No, abiogenesis has been performed in laboratories (which is a religious argument for ID), but it only proves that universal physical mathematical potentials allow for abiogenesis.
6. The factory maker argument 4:14
Try the self-formation and self-assembly of the patterns contained in the Table of Elements already being formed inside cosmic clouds via radiation and stars via heat and pressure. Stuff is being made every second of every day since the very beginning. The universe itself is evolving constantly.
7. Cells are irreducibly complex 5:44
False, all naturally occurring complex patterns are reducible to Planck scale. All matter in the universe basically consists of three fundamental particles which emerged (self-organised) from the Chaos soon after the "Beginning Event" (BB). (read Chaos Theory)

The religious argument of the motivated “watchmaker” is a false argument. Even a watch is ultimately reducible to atoms and they are reducible to the three fundamental particles. Where do you think our 24 hr day comes from? The solar system itself is a universal time keeping organisation. Is the solar system an irreducibly complex construct?

8. Where do complex organisms come from? 7:05
Evolution and mathematical pattern formation from simple to complex patterns. It is a property of elements that they obey mathematical laws which allows for the self-formation and self-assembly of chemical compounds from individual atoms to the formation of galaxies.
9. Gene regulatory networks (dGRN’s) point to design 8:12
No, microtubules are self-forming regulatory information processors. Microtubules consist of only 2 chemical tubulins which self-assemble into dynamically growing (self-adjusting) tubes which perform several computational functions.
10. The tasks performed by the dGRN point to intelligent setup 9:24
No, they point to all forms of enfolded and unfolded mathematical patterns

Adonai, your problem is that you have invested all your study time in religious mythology. You’re not interested in studying what science has discovered and explained.

This refusal to broaden your perspective makes you willfully ignorant of the physical world and how things work in reality.

You are mistaking QUASI-INTELLIGENT DYNAMICAL MATHEMATICAL FUNCTIONS for a MOTIVATED INTELLIGENCE.

That is a false assumption. The universe has no motivation other than implacable mathematical imperatives.

I am just astounded by the hubris of the book cover of “argument for the existence of God brought to you by Otangelo Grasso” depicting a human figure as God the Creator.

What “vanity” and selfish “pride” has caused this guy to compare himself to God?

I can see the metaphorical message in Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam” during the 16th century, but at least that was not titled the “Creation of Adam brought to you by Michelangelo”

 

W4U, Nicely done.

And that list is helpful too.

I don’t need to watch the video to know that it is wrong. Logical arguments ARE NOT “based on scientific evidence”. Ever. Logic is a part of science, science is not a part of logic. Logic is used in the scientific process, the scientific process does not “prove” logic.

And if you have “scientific evidence” (also known as empirical evidence) you don’t need “an argument” to make your point. You present the evidence. Have you noticed the suspicious lack of logical arguments for the Earth being a sphere? When you were in high school did you ever get a logical argument proving that the Earth rotates around the Sun? Not once. Ever. Because that’s not how “science” works, that’s how “bullshit” works. If all you have is a logical argument, I’m sorry, but what you’ve got there is a steaming pile of bullshit. There’s nothing whatsoever scientific about it. You resort to “an argument” when you have no evidence.

Coup de grâce

I hate post and runs. If you’re going to claim, “I have PROOF God did it!” at least have the courage to come back and see why you’re wrong.