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

War!! Remember all I have to is demonstrate logic without god, or show uncertaintly with 1 premise. Elimination circularization The process of elimination is logical process, which when you can’t figure out an answer you can always make up supernatural anything to answer your question. Con used this logical process to derive god to explain logic to him. This is what his whole argument rest on. Need I say more.;) QED! Circularity. The fallacy is that a claim a supernatural by process of elimination does anything. It’s people making up what they want. QED! If we are natural, so claims of supernatural beg the question. Thus any claim of supernatural what so ever beg the question. QED! First strike Cons argument; P1 This is a logical argument. The Fool: The logic of the argument depend its relations. But there is nothing logical about this premise. So I can reject it. Therefore p1 is out. P2 Pro must use logical laws to refute a logical argument. The Fool: This is false. The argument may be self-refuting or simply not logical to begin with. Or I may not accept all premises. So premise 2 is out. P3 In order for the refutation to be objectively true, logical laws must be abstract, invariant, and universal. 1.The Fool: False, objective simply means that which exist regardless of what you think about it. If abstract of only of the mind then it has to rely on what we think about it. So P3 must be rejected. 2.As I have already shown, that an argument may be self-refuting or circular, a refutation may only be in the form of highlighting the obvious as I am doing right now. So again P3 is out! QED 3.Logical laws need only be universal, we may explain the as abstract or invariant but they are not the necessary conditions. I followed alone by universal that they are invariant. P3 is out! QED 4.Lastly logical laws it simply the relations of the universe, or we enter a premises in a logical system but the logic itself is simply the relational quantifiers. P3 out! QED! Bombing run P4 Abstract entities are products of thought. The Fool: It is common to think of abstract entities as of the mind, but math is as abstract as logic. We apply both of these concepts externally as well. For math is simply the logic of quantity. For we understand most of the physical world with these tools. Proof of logic being outside your mind is that your computer runs off logical systems, it is depended on physical logical encoding. So either logic rules exist outside your mind or you are not on a computer. Therefore logical relations don’t depend only Supernatural QED Rejection of definition of logical rules as only immaterial !(Such definitions are obscure) http://en.wikipedia.org... Across the universe (anti-distortion) The definer of a word could not be wrong about his own definition, So I will use the word F-universe to refer to all things that exist, for I mean nothing in particular, but whatever it may be that exist whether I find out or not let if bet that which falls in the category of F-Universe. If it is the case, that there exist universal relations, then all things in F-Universe obey such rules. Recogition of such invariant relations is to recognize how the F-universe works. Let these F-universal laws be logic. QED! Transcendental Grenade charades Sophist: This is not circular at all. It is a transcendental argument. The Fool: Do you transcend the universe? No? then it’s circular. Secondly where is your certain source of transcendental information? You don’t have it? So it’s not logical then either. Transcendentally refuted QED! Similarly you cannot claim anything transcendental first. Any claim of transcendental begs the there is such entities claim this regardless of that question. Logical Soldiers Most creators of modern logic are anti-supernateral. Russell, Frege, Wittgenstein and Whitehead and other logicist’s of modern logic. Thus if they are certain enough to create then we only need be as certain as them to use it. NO supernatural explanation necessary. QED! Since logicians have authority over there logic, we only need appeal to then for the understanding of logic. QED! Live on longer with the Fool! P5 Products of thought necessitate a mind. The Fool: If P5 is granted then (Live long with the Fool!) follows by necessity and so I win QED. If P5 is rejected, the proof is self-refuting. Therefore I win either way. QED! Sophist: “The Fool™ is certain he exists. Did he define “I” before he was certain he existed” The Fool: I said clearly by exist I mean just consciousness and the rest follows via LLWTF! QED anyway. RED HERRING DENIED!! (arguments can’t be red herrings) Troopers from the Hill!! P6 In order for a mind to produce invariant and universal entities, it must also be invariant and universal. 1 The Fool: it doesn’t follow by necessity, that it’s invariant maybe it varies and Produces the occasional invariant. P6 out! 2 Secondly, invariant was not a necessary condition for logic, universal it good alone. P6 out! 3 mind being is good enough . (via across the universe) P6 out! The Foolish invasion! P7 In order for a mind to be invariant and universal, it must be immaterial. The Fool: Firstly, mind is not material by definition, its apart of F-universe (all things that exist) thus it is subsumed under any invariant relations that exist in F-Universe(all things that exist) 2. It most only be universal (across the universe) P8 If there is immaterial, invariant and universal mind then there is god. The Fool: Firstly immaterial is superfluous to mind, immaterial is more vague(it’s just not material) which says nothing in particular. If there is “mind”, invariant and universal mind then there is god. The Fool: it does not follow that from mind and invariance that we get supernatural mind. So this must be rejected!! See ya! P8 out!! That is the F-universe=F-universal. So if all minds being minds are in the F-universe will share the same universals anyways. (Occam’s) no supernatural needed. The Fools march on! P9 If there are abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws, then there is immaterial, invariant and universal mind. The Fool: It does not follow that abstract, invariant and universal logical laws, lead to universal mind of any sort. Good bye!!! P9 out! You’ve been fooled again!™ Finishing move: Get the Sophist to agree with something obvious which you will use later to bite him in the azz. (Socratic Method 102) ;) Super Hook The Sophist: 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. Stronger Line P1. If the Sophist’s argument is logical, then it the reality of god 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 Sophist: The Fool™ is hung up on this notion that the Bible cannot be certain” (beware nonsense fallacies) The Fool: The bible has been translated and recopied and interpreted by hand for the first 1500’s years which is beside the fact of the pure faith origin mystery behind it. Thus is not 100% NO CERTAINTY NO LOGIC! C3 Therefore the Sophist argument is not logical. special pleading stuffed! THE BIGGER AND SMELLIER STINKER!! Fake Circularity STUFFED!(there was nothing circular about it) P1. The Sophist now has to create a definition of God,(which won’t be certain to the real god) (via Line argument) CP2. You can’t define things into reality, so the reality of god must be demonstrated. (Insultingly agreed as tautology by the Sophist) C3. So the Sophist has no real God to work with. QED! Come on voters this is 100% sound! IF my opponent doesn’t prove a 100% non-faith certain source for the reality of god. Con fails to provide a logical logic argument of the real God. Bop is on Con (beware of fake fallacy claims!) Use your critical thinking caps. Vote fair vote Fool!