Nope, his existence doesnít account for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, or give me any added confidence in my ability to reason or perceive reality. The existence of the Christian God does all of these things. Fail.
Wtf are you talking about? I know what a conclusion & premise are, did you misread my sentence? That syllogism (conclusion included) doesnít conclusively prove that all electrons repel one another, & your syllogism (conclusion included) doesnít prove Godís existence. They are both lacking evidence to support their conclusions; ie, they prove nothing.
You just did it again!!!! You compared the premise of the first syllogism with the conclusion of the second syllogism. Why do you keep doing that? The first syllogism is designed to prove that ďparticle AĒ would repel an electron (not that all electrons repel one another), the second syllogism is designed to prove that God exists.
You obviously do not understand how logical proof works; no logician thinks that you have to demonstrate the premise of a deductive syllogism (that would render the syllogism inductive). Youíre just making up ridiculous standards because you donít like the fact my syllogism proves God exists. Given your absurd standard we wouldnít be able to prove anything at all. If you cannot refute the premises of a syllogism they are considered to be true, so refute either one of my premises.
You canít keep saying that thereís nothing in logic that requires oneís premises to be actually verifiable.
Sure I can because itís the truth, show me where it says a person must demonstrate the truth of a premise in deductive reasoning, you cannot find it because itís not a requirement.
ďA 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.Ē Your premises arenít true because youíve yet to actually demonstrate that God is necessary for knowledge. Youíve 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.
It is proof through negation! God can account for knowledge, no other theory can. Youíre the one irrationally making an argument from ignorance saying there may be some theory out there somewhere that we donít know about that can account for knowledge. A premise is assumed to be true until it is logically refuted, so get to refuting.
Do you know how dumb that is? Youíre asking someone to disprove the existence of God.
No I am not; I am asking you to refute the premise of my syllogism that proves God exists; big difference. Even if you could refute it, which we know you cannot, it wouldnít prove God didnít exist it would only prove that my syllogism didnít prove He existed.
You canít disprove the existence of God for the same reason you canít prove the existence of God;
Actually I have proven the existence of God, you asserting that I have not is meaningless until you actually refute the premises.
there is absolutely no proof of his existence or non-existence. Look, Iíll show you how crazy this is:
Actually our ability to know anything at all IS proof of His existence; you asserting it is not doesnít mean anything.
If my shoe is red, Aliens must exist
Nope, I can refute this premise, I can postulate numerous scenarios in which your shoe can be red and Aliens not exist (the manufacturer of the shoes merely made them that color). That was easy! Despite how easy that was you have yet to give me one scenario in which we can have knowledge and God not exist. I am beginning to suspect it is because any such scenario does not exist, which means I did in fact prove God existed.
See, you canít refute any of that,
I have provided you just as little evidence that thereís a correlation between my shoe being red & aliens existing as youíve provided us with proof that God's existence is necessary for knowledge to exist.
Not even close; I gave you numerous examples of how we can have knowledge if God exists, you didnít give us anything concerning how the existence of aliens has anything to do with the color of your shoe. I pointed out that no theory of knowledge that does not invoke God can account for knowledge and I challenged you to give me one. I also pointed out that there are plenty of scenarios in which your shoe can be red and aliens still not exist yet you have not given me one scenario in which knowledge is possible without God existing. You didnít even come close to proving a point here.
Nothing more than assertions without any evidence. There are countless things that can't be refuted, but that doesn't necessarily make them true.
Premises are assertions. You just have little understanding of how logical proof works. You keep confusing induction and deduction, itís sad.
ďSince every conclusion must be drawn from the comparison of two things with a third, a syllogism cousiste of two propositions, in each of which the same term occurs compared with another : this term is called the middle term. Thus, in Every v is x, Every z is Y, ē Therefore Every z is x, Y, the subject of the first assertion, and the predicate of the second, is the middle term. The two first assertions are the premises, the third is the conclusion. The predicate of the conclusion is called the major term; the subject of the conclusion the minor term : and the major or minor premiss is that which contains the major or minor term of the conclusion. The major premiss is always written first.Ē
Assertion - a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason
Bingo! As I have stated numerous times there is no logical requirement to support, demonstrate, or provide evidence for the premises of a syllogism, it is the responsibility of the critic to refute any premises he or she does not agree with. Your move.