the only truth is that there is no logical truth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument_(epistemology)

P1. The system has a limited (finite) number of claims.

P2. Every claim in the system must be justified by another claim in the same system.

P3. In any limited system like that, the chain of justifications must eventually loop back (become circular).

P4. Circular justification is not a real (ultimate) justification.

Conclusion:

C. Therefore, no claim in the system is ultimately justified.

P1...Yep, prove a GOD exists.

P1...Yep, prove a GOD exists.

God is unknown, so we cannot know if she exists or not. And we cannot know if lack of belief in God is good. What does an ant know about universe?

In his "Tractatus Logic-Philosophicus:, Ludwig Wittgenstein said that "roughly speaking: to say of two things that they are identical is nonsense, and to say of one thing that it is identical with itself is to say nothing." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#TracLogiPhil

Further, your efforts with syllogisms contain propositions, only, no conclusion[s]. The logic of syllogism requires conclusion, at least one, to follow propositions. And since the above disagrees with your P1 in this effort, which follows that P2-P6 also fail, so, in this case, having no conclusion is actually the only truth in the post.

You noted in post #2 that your source is wiki. Wiki says of itself that it is of "unreliable accuracy" because it allows anyone to edit virtually any posting, which is hardly academic integrity.

What does an ant know about universe?

Ask it.

Same answer for knowing if God exists.

Ask Him. But, there are rules to that game: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that givethto all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1: 5 - 8

You don't seem to be even understanding the argument. Which is amazing given how simple it is.

The "argument" you make is an attempt at syllogism, but fails to meet that logical standard because, as I have said, twice [at least, but not necessarily in this string]:

1. The propositions [their number depends on the all that is summarized in the conclusion] must be true. Yours are not true, for the reasons I have indicated.
2. There must be at least one conclusion; you have presented no conclusion[s].

You do not seem to understand the elements of syllogism, which has a specified structure. Take some college philosophy coursers. I did. Yes, any argument can be simple, but virtually no argument lacking proper structure is necessarily true just because it is claimed. Chaos is as easily, in fact, more easily made than order.

And why is that true?

established rules of syllogizing.

Here is an example of a failed syllogism:

P1 Birds fly

P2 Camels walk

C! Therefore, butterflies swim

In structure, thus appears to be a legitimate syllogism. However, it is not, even though in structure it appears correct. However, by rule, all propositions must, in fact, be true, and not merely assumed to be true, or the conclusion does not properly follow. By deductive reasoning, a reasoning a syllogism must apply, all propositions must demonstrate to be true, and must therefore lead by the same reasoning to the conclusion.

Analysis P1: While we generally assume all birds have the ability of sustained flight, it is demonstrat00ed that, among the classification, "bird," there are ostriches, which are flightless. Neither do chickens exhibit sustained flight. There are others. Therefore, P1 is not a truth.

Analysis of P2: Camels, a land mammal, do walk. They also run, but that is not a necessary qualification. So, P2 is true.

Analysis of C: Butterflies can and do survive in water if they can reach land to dry out, but their wings may not ever allow flight, again, but, flight is not the qualification required by the syllogism; swimming is. Staying afloat in water is not a swimming act, but merely of staying alive in water. Therefore, the conclusion is false.

Result: This is not a valid syllogism as it does not demonstrate deductive reasoning that concludes both true propositions and a true resulting conclusion.

And why is that true?

Because it fails logic, but I am not aging to play your why? game any further. You're not a child.

Because it fails logic

And why is that true?

You're not a child. Stop acting like one.

And why are any of your claims true?

Stop. last warning.

Are you already tired? Or do you finally understand the simple argument I made?

Asked and answered. Review the transcript, Counselor.

And why is that true? Do you realize or not realize all your claims suffer from one exactly same question?

True...Conceptual claims are ambiguous by their very nature.

Though, within the environment of the human conceptual establishment we also conceive rules.

So.

Birds fly and walk

Camels walk but do not fly

And therefore fish do not do either.

Unless it's a flying fish or a mudskipper, which sort of fly and sort of walk.

As for butterflies...Well butterflies are not necessarily associated with butter...Though they do fly

Now those are fun claims.

The conclusion is an assumption on unrelated matters.