God Created All Atheists

Unproved according to someone who does not understand what proof means

Proof means:

1. There exists a system for determining whether thing exists or not
2. System confirmed that thing exists

Existence of such system itself cannot be proved by system itself.

So these premises follow:

P1. System for determining if things exist must itself exist

P2. System for determining if things exist cannot determine itself to exist, unless it uses external validation which requires no determination of its own

P3. External validation is non-logic, which requires no determination of its own

C. Non-logic validates system for determiming existence.

Now, remove non-logic and God from this, and all what you are left with is a system for determining existence which ironically cannot determine its own existence.

Explanations definitionally require logic to qualify, you cannot explain why logic is valid, only why it is necessary. Non-logic isn't valid by definition and isn't possible to rely on because you would have to first identify it, putting you in the camp of relying on logic before you've even started

Ok, so you cannot identify non-logic. If you cannot identify it, then you cannot know what it is. If you cannot know what it is, it can be explanation for logic while not requiring explanation of its own.

Saying that explanation is by definition using logic fails to understand one key point: logic must exist in order to be used. So since you cannot confirm existence of logic in any way, using logic to confirm logic violates principles of logic, making logic, from your position, impossible. Since you have no way to determine if logic exists, and you assume different from logic cannot exist either, what you end up with is nothing. To use logic requires logic to exist in the first place. And that is your unsolvable problem. Your starting point cannot be verified to exist using logic alone.

So again, a simple question, how do you know logic exists? It either does or doesnt, and to use it by its own standards requires it to exist in the first place.

You cannot use logic if it doesnt exist, and knowing it exists requires external validation which you as atheist lack.

The mere action of identifying "non-logic" as a concept which can be conveyed and discussed already means you're using (and therefore accepting as valid) the first law of logic.

What a silly argument. And the one which was defeated about 10 times now. But here it goes again. Yes, I use logic. I also have explanation for why logic exists. You dont.

P1. Non-logic cannot be identified

P2. Thing which cannot be identified cannot be known

P3. Thing which cannot be known can be explanation for existence of logic.

C. Non-logic can be explanation for logic

Now, this is the argument you cannot disagree with because it was made out of your claims throughout all this conversation.

P3 is true by modal logic, no known fact can contradict non-logic as possible explanation for logic.

And since you provided no fact which makes non-logic impossible as explanation, it stands as possible explanation.

Logic alone cannot provide truth or explain the world because it requires true premises, which it cannot provide on its own. Logic is a tool for structuring arguments and validating their form, not for discovering factual truths about reality. Therefore, while logic can expose inconsistencies or contradictions, it cannot explain things like randomness, emotions, or subjective experiences without being paired with other forms of knowledge, such as sensory experience, intuition, or empirical evidence

Meaningless, definitionally irrational, and a non-sequitur

Necessary thing by definition doesnt require explanation. By modal logic, which at this point I am sure you are unfamiliar with, possible explanation is explanation which contradicts with no known fact. Unkown explanation logically contradicts with no known fact. Non-logic is unknown, as you admitted. God likewise is unknown. So these are all possible explanations for logic.

"Don't need to be explained" is subjective first off all. But more importantly, this is a meaningless conclusion. An explanation is what which provides clarity. Calling something necessary does nothing to enhance our understanding of why and how it came to be

Necessary by definition is a thing which doesnt require "why". The one suiting description of such is "unknown" and the ones suiting description of unknown are Gods and non-logic.

So I can ask "Why logic exists? What created logic"?

Likewise, I can say for entire existence, what created it?

The problem for your position is NOT limited to logic alone. Even if you were to prove that logic doesnt need to be proved (an absurd claim where you cannot avoid using logic alone to defend existence of logic), you still would fail to account for existence of other things.

Why do atoms exist? No explanation...

Why do things which exist exist and why different things dont exist instead? Why does movement exist?

In other words, your problem starts with logic, but doesnt end there, but extends to all what exists.

Design of the world is such that you cannot explain why different design doesnt exist instead, and who made this design in the first place.

The mere idea that different world can be imagined, asks the question: why doesnt different world exist? What are conditions for existence?

Now, some atheists have offerred a simple argument:

P1. Things which exist cannot not exist at the same time

P2. Things which dont exist cannot exist at the same time

P3. Any imagined world different from real one is impossible at present moment by definition

However, the main issue with argument is that while it is a counter-contingency definition argument, it relies on idea that everything which exists is necessary and requires no explanation, and likewise provides no way to determine existence in the first place, while at the same time not even disproving God.

So eternal universe truly doesnt work as explanation, no matter how you put it, because existence itself, if needing no conditions, enables everything, including Gods.

So the only theory which can disprove God is that all other existence is contingent on something which at the same time prevents God from existing. But such necessary something would still be creative power which is capable of creating everything which exists, power which by definition still only suits God.

The idea there is that I'm supposed to be consistent, but that's only a problem within logic. You claim to accept non-logic, so that's still not a problem within your world view. It is only a problem from your view if you're beginning with logic, which you pretending you're not.

It is a problem for your position, which is: only logic and logical things exist. So if you concede to inconsistency or circular logic, you concede that your logic is flawed by laws of logic you use.

Already explained to you multiple times the difference between foundational and circular, and which one applies to my position. This isn't confusion by this point, you're just lying because you know your position is not defendable.

The problem, again, is that you accept foundation and build using it. But once foundation needs to be proved to exist, it fails to do so on its own. Truly, on their own, all definitions are either circular either undefined. All logic is either circular or unproved. Your foundation (A=A) cannot withstand any questioning, and the fact that it cannot be proved to exist by itself already shows flaw: thing which is used to prove existence cannot be used to prove its own existence, and thus any existence it proves likewise becomes unproved.

You forget that God existed before creation. God then created the universe and the logic related to his creation.

Proof means:

There exists a system for determining whether thing exists or not

System confirmed that thing exists

Existence of such system itself cannot be proved by system itself.

Confirming = conclusion

A conclusion, by definition, is the result of logic.

There is no definition of proof that does not entail logic, which is why proving logic is a definitionally absurd task. Which is why your argument, no matter how rhetorically clever it could ever be made, will always fail. No matter how hard you pretend you're not using logic to prove logic, that's exactly what you're doing here and throughout this whole thread.

External validation is non-logic

And triangles are circular. See, anyone can play this game.

You're just writing words with no understating or consideration of what they mean. Non-logic is the anti to validation, which is to say you cannot use it to validate anything by it's own definition.

Ok, so you cannot identify non-logic.

I didn't say you couldn't identify it, I said that the moment you even attempt to identify it you are presupposing that it can be identified and are thus accepting the first law of logic as valid. That automatically puts you in the box of logic. You continue to pretend that you can stand on the outside of it and look at logic and non-logic and shift back and forth between the two. You can't.

If you cannot know what it is, it can be explanation for...

OMG

An explanation is that which adds clarity and understanding. If you do not know what something is it, by definition, cannot be used as an explanation.

If you asked me how I pulled a rabbit out of a hat and I told you "magic", that's not an explanation, all I did was move the question backwards.

using logic to confirm logic violates principles of logic

That's literally what you've been attempting to accomplish this entire thread.

Offering God as an explanation for logic is an attempt to convince people through the use of reason that logic itself is valid. That is by definition circular reasoning.

and you assume different from logic cannot exist either

Saying non-logic is a different form of logic is like saying abstinence is a different form of sex.

You do not know what these words mean.

such necessary something would still be creative power which is capable of creating everything which exists, power which by definition still only suits God.

A unicorn is a horse like being that necessarily exists.

There, I canned it necessary, therefore it must exist now.

Prove unicorns don't exist. You can't, because they do, because I defined them that way.

Confirming = conclusion

A conclusion, by definition, is the result of logic.

So you cannot have any conclusions if logic doesnt exist, thus failing to prove logic means no conclusion can be made by you.

There is no definition of proof that does not entail logic, which is why proving logic is a definitionally absurd task. Which is why your argument, no matter how rhetorically clever it could ever be made, will always fail. No matter how hard you pretend you're not using logic to prove logic, that's exactly what you're doing here and throughout this whole thread.

You still dont get it, dont you? In order for your argument to be valid(according to logic), logic must exist in the first place.

The claim "logic doesnt exist" only self destructs if logic exists. So every claim you make here depends on the point that logic exists. If logic doesnt exist, all your claims are meaningless as well as mine.

If I say "logic is unproved", such claim can only be "Not according to logic" IF logic exists.

I am sure you understand nihilist's argument against logic and for meaningless universe, but from your point of you, you cannot respond to it, because every response you make depends on logic to exist in order to be logically valid, and if logic doesnt exist, your responses cannot be according to logic.

If you do not know what something is it, by definition, cannot be used as an explanation.

You have reading issues. No one said "unknown is an explanation". But "unknown can be explanation".

An explanation is that which adds clarity and understanding

Unknown thing which can be anything likewise can add clarity and understanding. If it doesnt right now, it doesnt mean it cant. What we know is that:

unknown = can be anything

can be anything = can be explanation

To claim it cannot be explanation would mean it cant be anything, which is a contradiction.

Offering God as an explanation for logic is an attempt to convince people through the use of reason that logic itself is valid. That is by definition circular reasoning.

No, saying "Logic is proved by logic" is circular reasoning. Saying "Logic is proved by things outside logic" is by definition opposite of circular reasoning and doesnt violate laws of logic. So if your logic violates itself, and mine doesnt, I can see who is winner.

and you assume different from logic cannot exist either

Saying non-logic is a different form of logic is like saying abstinence is a different form of sex

Different from, not different form.

A unicorn is a horse like being that necessarily exists

That it called adding to definition. You can prove necessary being. You cannot prove the added part "unicorn is a horse like". That would be like me saying "Sun must exist, so the Sun in the shape of a bunny must exist. The moment you expand definition, you add things you cannot prove.

but from your point of you, you cannot respond to it, because every response you make depends on logic to exist in order to be logically valid, and if logic doesnt exist, your responses cannot be according to logic.

If you're going to tell me my position does not work according to my view, then you need to adopt my viewpoints, not insert your own in order to claim mine are inconsistent.

Once again, "from my view", logic does not need nor could it ever be proven. I've explained this numerous times already. If you still don't understand it that's because you don't want to.

But the question of whether logic "exists" is even more ridiculous. Not just because you're butchering the definition of "exist", but more importantly, even setting that to the side, the proof that logic exists is the fact that we are using it right now. To question that is every bit as absurd as as telling me to prove to you that I exist, or to prove to yourself that you exist. It's not a serious argument, it's a level of incoherence suitable for a patient in a mental institution.

Again, logic is foundational. Every coherent thought we have begins with logic. It isn't proven, it's presupposed. If you want to challenge that then tell me how that presupposition can be questioned without accepting the validity of logic at the outset.

4 pages in and still nothing.

-->If you do not know what something is it, by definition, cannot be used as an explanation.

You have reading issues. No one said "unknown is an explanation". But "unknown can be explanation".

You do know that "cannot" is the negation of "can"... Right?

But go on, tell me more about my reading comprehension issues.

Unknown thing which can be anything likewise can add clarity and understanding.

It cannot add clarity because "unknown" is the literal negation of "known", which is what clarity requires.

In order for that unknown thing to be able to add clarity it must first become known, which is an entirely different statement.

Beyond that, what is with this obsession with "can" and "possible"? Telling me "X can be a possible explainion for Y" is a totally meaningless statement. So what? My bank account can possibly have 7 figures in it, that doesn't mean I get to quit my job and go on a cruise.

The time to assert something as an explanation is when it is an explanation, till then it's meaningless.

No, saying "Logic is proved by logic" is circular reasoning. Saying "Logic is proved by things outside logic" is by definition opposite of circular reasoning and doesnt violate laws of logic.

I'm going to set to the side that you still don't get why the word proof cannot be applied to logic itself.

So with that, yes you are correct that saying logic proves logic is circular (which is why I've never said that despite how many times you pretend that is my position), but it is logically valid to say logic can be proved by [something external to logic].

The problem for you is that as a human being, it is not possible for you to step outside of logic. The moment you attempt to identify anything outside of logic, you're already using it. You're already back in the "logic box". You can appeal to God all you want, your "conclusion" that logic is valid will always be the result of you using your own logic.

You cannot escape this box.

That it called adding to definition. You can prove necessary being. You cannot prove the added part

Great, so we agree at least that the "God" part cannot be proven.

What a stroke of luck, that GOD didn't need to be created...Well, a bearded magician didn't need creating.

Whereas the fundamental basis of everything is the fundamental basis of everything.

Which I often refer to as the GOD principle.

Though some people have a tendency to get too excited by the G word.

So Debby, in your book, for how long was your GOD clicking his heels before he came up with the biblical creation idea?

Must have been an infinitely long time.

Now, I can run with the idea of infinite Universes and their associated evolutionary processes.

GOD principle indeed , but magical beardy man would be infinitely unnecessary.

The Bible does not explicitly state how long God "mused" about creation, but rather describes the act of creation as occurring over six days followed by a seventh day of rest, as detailed in the 

Genesis creation narrative. Interpretations of the length of these "days" vary, with some seeing them as literal 24-hour periods and others interpreting them as extended epochs, according to various theological views

No offence

But it would be a tad dumb to assume that the Bible was not made up and written by men.

So they took a week and had a lie in on Sunday.

The statement "the Bible is the inspired word of God" is a core tenet of Christian theology, meaning that God, through the Holy Spirit, guided the human authors of the Bible, ensuring the final text was precisely what He intended. This concept, rooted in verses like 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All Scripture is God-breathed"), asserts that the Bible's authority stems from God, not human invention, making it a divine revelation that is authoritative and reliable for teaching and guidance.  

More fanciful fluff Debs.

No validity.

It's like me saying that my words are guided by Miss Zimzam and her partner Miss Wooftie from the fifth Universe.

Those names are not found in the Bible.

On the Planet Warb, in the Protillion system of the Fifth Universe, Miss Zimzam and Miss Wooftie proclaim the words of the sacred book of Nobbo, via the giant megahorn known as BiggyBoyo.

Is that British humour?

No, just Lynch theory.

Then it must be American. Most Americans still believe in that theory.

Americans believe in all sorts.

Then why haven’t they sorted out their beliefs?

Because they believe in all sorts.

This is how you define Americans.

”Believing in all sorts" 

refers to Omnism, the spiritual belief that every religion contains some truth or universal lesson, though no single religion holds the complete truth. Omnists accept and respect multiple spiritual paths, seeing them as different interpretations or aspects of a larger, universal truth, rather than as contradictory or mutually exclusive systems. 

I'm someone who doesn't believe in anything, but nonetheless accepts that which constitutes Universality.

Give me an ism.

A person who doesn't believe in anything but accepts everything could be described as an 

omnist, someone who believes in all faiths or a single transcendent purpose uniting all things, or a sceptic who is open-minded but uncertain about ultimate realities. They might also be characterized by their broad acceptance, which could lead to a position of relativism, where truth and values are considered subjective. 

Nice.

Makes me feel important.

Thanks.

You can put back your shirt. You are an Omnist and not an exhibitionist.