The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god.

“He refers to me repeatedly as a sophist, which given his manner of speaking could easily be understood as "a person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound." The Sophist 2012 Sophism 101 Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something." – Plato Etymology from English to ancient Greek: "wise man" means sophós. Sophists were self-proclaimed wise men who would argue to appear right using anything they can such as rhetoric, appearances, deception and unsound reasoning. Here are some examples of sophisms: 1.“It seems to me that the pot is calling the kettle black.” 2.“After all his complaining and arbitrary hand-waving, he goes back to his usual conceit and says I've been outclassed.” 3.“The Fool™ refuses to recognize my arguments, but that does not make them suddenly nonexistent” 4.“ That is what ad hominem really means. It means he is arguing against me as a person and not my arguments. Is this how debate works on The Hill™?” 5. “The Fool™ was apparently insulted by my use of propositional symbolism, as though I wrote them for his benefit.” 6. “Red Herrings are beautiful to look at, and I appreciate The Fool™ showing us one, but this is not about my mind, The Fool's mind, or any particular mind.” 7.“ That is what ad hominem really means. It means he is arguing against me as a person and not my arguments. Is this how debate works on The Hill™?” The Fool: it is not ad hominem if I am warning the audience about how you are using deception rather the reasoning, to manipulate their perceptions. All representation of my position has been intentionally distorted in every example you give. Therefore it is fully justified. Therefor I am justified in using the term Sophist. And I will justify all accusations. The use of justification is how it works on the hill. ;) For a Full sketch of sophism see the Sophist Fools gold section of round 2. What is logical about God? If there is a god we don’t understand such power, and so there is no way of deriving if or if not god has any logical relation to the world, for it is beyond our knowledge. So we could never know that for sure. But we do know for sure that the universe is the universe,(Universe=universe) Just as we know that whatever is true must be true by tautology. That is True=True. For if it is not true it is false. Thus the law of non-contradiction is born.(a logical rule) Truth=/=false. Trivial, but tried tested and true, straight from the Hill! ;) QED ;) again! True colors part 1 “E.g. I could define my computer as boot, but what was formally called computer remains the very same regardless of my definition.” The Fool. Round one The actual Sophist response, 8.“I did respond to his arguments about language. I clearly pointed out a dichotomy when I said; 9.“Perhaps The Fool™ wants to argue that we can't trust our language to correctly symbolize reality, in which case, The Fool™ can't refute my argument because he'd be using untrustworthy language to do so and I win anyway. The Fool: What is important to notice is how the Sophist uses the “Perhaps” to give an appearance that I actually did argue that we couldn’t trust our language, when I never said such things. By using “perhaps” he is able to give a false impression of my position to the audience. This also leaved him room to say that he didn’t make such claims of me later, but if you buy it he will use it; “He must respond to my contentions on language if he wants his refutation to be taken seriously.” The Sophist Secondly notice how he just used the word dichotomy and not a FALSE DICHOTOMY, which is needed to refute his own false impression of me. ;) By using perhaps he can later take back the claim that he never gave a false interpretation, Live on with the Fool! I think therefor I am! By I think I mean consciousness. Consciousness is awareness, awareness is of something. Something must be distinguishable from something else, and those two things must share a background from which they could be distinguished from, and so on and so forth. Let “I” be the label of that which is aware. A thought is self-evident by tautology let my awareness be called thoughts and sensations, I could never be wrong about my thoughts or sensations for they are self-evident. Let, that which I perceive to be based from sense information be called my external atmosphere. (The physical world) Let me call logic the relations of mind and matter that I experience. I am alive and I exist, And this is for certain! (Via Modernized cogito) Straight from the hill!™ QED! (justification of outclassed?) True Colors part 2 (no color) Another sophist technique is to take advantage of extra dimed quotations, this makes easier for the readers to not take as much notice, of what he is actually referring too. (11 Sophisms demonstrated.) And I Demand the Sophist now to make them as clear as all his statements. Secondly I demand that he use actually quotations of what I said and demonstrate what exactly he is referring to in my argument. Notice: I have remained faithful to this throughout all my debates. 11. “This seems (appears) to me to be both totally inaccurate and hypocritical on his part.” The Sophist Note: The Fools accusation of that the Sophist intentionally uses distortion is justified. You’ve been fooled™ Hook line and stinker: Get the Sophist to agree with something obvious which you will use later to bite him in the azz. (Socratic Method 101) ;) Hook The Sophist: ”he’s just pointing out the obvious: that language is independent of reality, and as such you cannot define anything into reality. Such thinking, of course, is hardly Straight From the Hill™. That’s just common sense. Any fool can see that this is just a tautology. Line P1. If the Sophist’s argument is logical, then it must be certain, (Requirement for logical proof) P2. The bible is not certain so the definition of the bible might not reflect a reality of God, (The Bibles certainty is taken of faith but it does have inaccuracies. Round 2) C3 Therefore the Sophist argument is not logical. The big Stinker P1. The Sophist now has to create a definition of God, (via Line argument) P2. You can’t define things into reality, so the reality of god must be demonstrated. (Insultingly agreed as tautology by the Sophist) C3. Therefor it is not possible for a logical argument for god. QED! Has been delivered again as promised. And you heard this proof here first. Straight from the hill! ™ ;) Thus the Fool is justified in his claims, that the Sophist has been outclassed! True Colors part 3 Look how the Sophist reacted to the first formulation of this argument: Sophist: This is a completely arbitrary, absurd constraint. I can't use a definition of God until I've proved God? How is this nothing more than blatant question begging? :( (Sophisms count is at 12) The Fool: well, when you argue for why it is arbitrary (for no reason in particular) absurd (contradicting or abnormal) and begging the question (circular) all at the same, then you could start working on the others. But until then, the Fool Rules! ™ (Note: The Fools justification of The Sophist not supporting his claims) Logical argument: At least one conclusion supported by premise. Soundness: The premise must be true and it must share a logical relation to the conclusion. Across the Universe! The universe is, and as it is such, whatever It’s invariance is universal. Since we are in the universe we are forced into whatever invariance the universe has. All we need to do is recognize such relations and we can know logic. The rest is superfluous to the matter! QED! (justification of outclassed) Sorry Fool fans this is all I could fit here! The sophist may continue get darker, more insulting, more rhetorical, more deceptive or to even copy the Fool's technique. As always I will push for clearer and honest Arguments. No pointing and bold assertions!! logical arguments only!. The light Shines through on round three for the Fool! Vote for victory vote Fool!!