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

Fooled by The language Language is a complex set of physical symbols used to communicate our ideas. That is every word is a symbol which presupposes an idea. In order for communication to take place the ideas which the word relates to must be similar in the speaker and interpreters mind. That is language symbolized reality. It could only at best describe reality. But you cannot define anything into reality. To define a word is simply to assign a set of words, to another. (You have only changed symbols around) Unless this set of world symbolized some reality its useless and even harmful, if you take it as reality. That is, just to assign a set of symbols to a symbol is circular if they don’t actually symbolize anything. E.g. I could define my computer as boot, but what was formally called computer remains the very same regardless of my definition. A subjective definition is useless because the purpose of language is to communicate objectively. Most people are not aware of what I am saying right now. This philosophy is as fresh as I speak it, its straight from the hill™. The bible has no advantage. We don’t know what if any reality is being symbolized other than somebodies ideas. A definition of god is simply that, a definition of the word god. If any god exists it is independent of what anything defines him as. The book and the truth of god are completely independent. Reality has its own attributes whether we like it, accept it, agree with it, believe in it, assert it, vote for it or not. All we do we can do with language is categories it and describe it. Reality could never be wrong but we could articulate it wrong. Same with the reality of logic and the language of logic, only our articulation of it may fail. We don’t need to know the word “contradiction” to not be able to run opposite direction at the same time. Nor do we need to know it to use it. A primitive man knows that to build an axe the Head of the axe must be logically related to the handle. (1:1 correlation) they must share the relation; Head<->handle. Or the head will fall off when he lifts it. As a matter of fact to be rational is to act in accordance with the logical relations of reality. The rational capacity is based on the ability to recognize such relation. This is not in the dictionary its straight from the hill™. ;) To think rationality is to keep in line with such universal rules, when reasoning. A fool’s argument? Sophist: This is a logical argument. The Fool: I feel much better now that you have said that. Sophist: You must use logical laws to refute a logical argument. The Fool: it would be helpful with a successful refutation. Agreed! Sophist: In order for the refutation to be objectively true, logical laws must be abstract, invariant, and universal. The Fool: Why don’t you just lay down the laws of the universe all ready?! Sophist: Abstract entities are products of thought. The Fool: it was just a joke! They can be abstracted by material relations as just the same. The Fool: we understand everything in a framework of thought but it doesn’t follow that they only exist as such. Sophist: Products of thought necessitate a mind. The Fool: Switch! The mind is the necessary condition of thought. Sophist: In order for a mind to produce invariant and universal entities, it must also be invariant and universal. The Fool: we must share in the invariant relations, or we couldn’t be communicating learn mean an how to use them in a sentence if we didn’t share a similar mental framework. Sophist: In order for a mind to be invariant and universal, it must be immaterial. The Fool: Kind of superfluous no? what else besides mind is immaterial? Immaterial says nothing in particluar about anything only bout what is not. But what is not doesn't exist. Sophist: If there is no God, then there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind. The Fool: Good luck in demonstrating that. God is what you need to prove, it can’t be in a premise. Come on now, do I really need to point this out? Sophist: If there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind, then there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws. The Fools: it does not follow. Logical relations can be derived from empirical experience. Aka Gravity is a relation of matter. The Fool: Well you certainly get a B for boldness. Review of the fool’s main arguments. I have demonstrated that logical relations are not necessary dependent on the mind. They can be abstracted physically. A definition of god is symbolization of what a word refers to but doesn’t necessary related to any reality. Certainty is needed for a proof and the bible is far from certain, it needs to be taken on faith as an infallible source of information. It has not been demonstrated that mind depends on god. Mind interacts with matter or else drugs could not affect our minds so the share a reality. The fact that we do have mind is objective, or we could not communicate if words didn’t relate to similar ideas. Some words like 1 and circle only have 1 possible interpretation. God needs to be demonstrated that god exist before the premise that god is necessary for mind can have any logical value. It’s plainly circular. The 6 points mentioned are independent refutations and mutually exclusive. That is each one individually needs to be refuted. Plus there will be more to come, if my opponent doesn’t just forfeit. Vote Fair Vote Fool!