Proving god is a lie

There is no need to be patronizing. 

A syllogism's premise to conclude a 100% response requires an all.    I could say some men are mortal and that too would be true. Yet, that could only lead me to conclude that perhaps Socrates is mortal.  And even with that I could be 100% confident that might be mortal, but I want to know that he is mortal. And therefore I need an all.  

Your suggestion of martians however was not based on anything of reasonable confidence. It was created by you to try and refute my logic. Yet you did not achieve what you wanted because you were unable to do more than try and compare apples with oranges.  You needed to provide an example to allow you to compare apples with apples. 

Your suggestion about me attending a logic class is like water of a ducks back because it is you who appears to have a problem with understanding logic. But that is ok.

If you are a teachable person and humble then perhaps your god or someone's god will enable you to learn some logic.

Anyway it's refreshing....You that is.

And we're only here to argue.

Agreement is nice, but not as entertaining.

So where do you originate from, as your English is too good. 

Ok.

 

So based upon World geography, you have an acquired sense of race and difference, and an acquired data base....Same as us all I suppose.

And  you're from in or around the Arabian Peninsular which encompasses various States depending upon where one chooses to draw a line.

And you choose to label with the name of the divergent Abrahamic sect known as Islam.

Do you also sub-label in respect of a schismatic branch of Islam? 

I personally prefer the label realist, and attempt to be as realistic as is achievable....So obviously this negates a dependency on believe or faith in the unknowable.

I therefore see no intellectual value in naive 2000 year old creation hypotheses. Though there is obviously a sketchy historical record that can be appreciated.

For me GOD is the principle that gives purpose to everything, and popular religions are just old and out dated explanations of this.

Did a bloke chat with a GOD up a mountain?

And notwithstanding the chiselling logistics...You would at least expect GOD to provide at least a few paper copies.

And then an unspecified number of years later along came other blokes who decided to do things slightly differently.

And ever since then, other blokes (and women when allowed) came along, and again thought that doing things slightly differently would be better.

Such is the generational transfer of data and the slow modification thereof.

So GOD is never a lie.

God is variously an interpretation of that which is unknowable.

And ritualistic add-ons, are just some examples of the whacky things that hominids do to pass the time of day.

So go for it.

I prefer cycling and gardening.

And within the next 30 years I expect to die and be returned to the component parts of the Universe.

And I also expect, that this is what will eventually happen to you.

But who knows?

Certainly not you or I.

1. Popular Religions are huge claims..... And ultimately cannot be defended....You cannot prove the existence of a specific GOD.

2. For sure, people are easily programmed to be fanatical and more or less arrogant.

3. The weight of support rests upon social programming..... Social programming does not validate wording though.

4a. To assume to know the unknowable is arrogant....But magical blokes is a fantasy explanation, in the absence of knowledge....Doesn't matter how you dress it up.

5. Everything is an opinion....Or more precisely, subject to an individual data management process.

6. You follow, and I currently follow the Tour de France...Data input, process, store and variously output.

4b. And I cannot explain the unknowable....A GOD principle explains a universal purpose....Though everything might be pure chance.

Though there is the option of a chanceful and successive GOD principle....An idea that I find interesting.

Nonetheless, to prove any such hypothesis, one must first overcome the something from noting obstacle.

And the same applies to theistic hypotheses....To simply ignore is arrogant.

1. Of course you can what?.....Your Ebuccian equation proves zero.

2."Thus make partners" etc....Religious speak....This proves zero.

3. I asserted nothing...I made an observation.....Can you invalidate my observation?

4a. No just another observation....Can you actually invalidate my observation?

5. A cup is a cup......Though perception and data management allows you to come to this conclusion.

4b....In terms of everything, unexplainable is therefore unknowable. Yes indeed.

Yes...All my best English

Hypotheses that suggest a reason for the unknowable....Or unexplainable, depending upon how one chooses to split hairs.

1. One assumes that GOD is the foundation of all popular Abrahamic religions....Or are you saying that there is more than one.

2. Stating things is what we do.

3. Everything relates to senses...Data in, data processing, data storage, data modification and data out.....Otherwise zero.

4a. So you can't then.

5. What isn't?....See 3.

6. See 3.

7. Nice English

8. There is more than one way to define unexplainable. See explain.....Though unexplainable was your choice.