Quote Originally Posted by Statler
This premise is easily refuted, the FSM does not have the necessary attributes to account for the preconditions of knowledge, the God of scripture does; so not only is your premise false but your entire point is guilty of the fallacy of faulty analogy.
Sure he does, he’s the all powerful FSM.

Quote Originally Posted by Statler
What are you talking about? Of course that syllogism doesn’t prove all electrons repel one another, that’s a premise in that syllogism, the syllogism’s conclusion is what does the proving. The syllogism proves “Particle A” will repel another electron just like my syllogism’s conclusion proves that God exists. Why you would confound the purpose of the premise of one syllogism with purpose of the conclusion of another is beyond me.
Wtf are you talking about? I know what a conclusion & premise are, did you misread my sentence? That syllogism (conclusion included) doesn’t conclusively prove that all electrons repel one another, & your syllogism (conclusion included) doesn’t prove God’s existence. They are both lacking evidence to support their conclusions; ie, they prove nothing.

Quote Originally Posted by Statler
The guy who doesn’t understand the difference between the premises and conclusion of a syllogism is trying to teach me about validity and soundness? I have been quite clear on numerous occasions that not only is my syllogism fully valid it is also completely sound because both premises are true.
You can’t keep saying that there’s nothing in logic that requires one’s premises to be actually verifiable. “A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.” Your premises aren’t true because you’ve yet to actually demonstrate that God is necessary for knowledge. You’ve just continued claiming that you think all other ways are impossible, without actually proving your own. This is not proof through negation, that is just your unproven theory.

Quote Originally Posted by Statler
The premises are not true because they can be refuted, you have not refuted either of my premises, faulty analogy again.
Do you know how dumb that is? You’re asking someone to disprove the existence of God. You can’t disprove the existence of God for the same reason you can’t prove the existence of God; there is absolutely no proof of his existence or non-existence. Look, I’ll show you how crazy this is:

If my shoe is red, Aliens must exist
My shoe is red
Therefore Aliens exists

See, you can’t refute any of that, so it obviously must be true. I have provided you just as little evidence that there’s a correlation between my shoe being red & aliens existing as you’ve provided us with proof that God's existence is necessary for knowledge to exist. Nothing more than assertions without any evidence. There are countless things that can't be refuted, but that doesn't necessarily make them true.