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

Beware of change! An Appeal to tradition is a common logical fallacy. That is the inference that we should do something now just because we did it in the before. The Fool has notices that it’s a DDO tradition that you when somebody presents a logical argument, that the way to refute it is to show a premise false. Therefore it becomes intuitive to think that we must always do it the same way. But all GOD arguments are based from an absence of explanation, therefore it follows that any other explanation usurps a God argument, without even having to refer to it. Talk about gravity! All cosmological arguments of GOD are based on an appeal to ignorance. They all consist of saying we don’t know the cause of something therefore that Cause is GOD. But this is nonsense, because nothing follows from I don’t know but I don’t know. I don’t know is the absence of information. You can’t get information from 0 information, Just as we can’t get something from nothing. Aka (? ->?) Not (?-> God) You can’t go from I don’t know to I know its GOD. For that it is a Direct Contradiction. For its saying ~know & Know at the same time. Let know=K (~k&k) Even such a claim, would only mean that the word GOD=I don’t know. AKA GOD =0 These arguments cannot logically even get off the ground. Doctor Fool here to examine the illness of the LCA argument P1. Dissected and exposed Fallacy=F ‘Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.’ F1. Intentional distortion of the Principle of Sufficient Reason The principle of Sufficient Reason states that there is Reason for everything. It is false and a Lie that it means there is an explanation for everything. An explanation entails that there is a Knowable Reason. There could be and infinite number of reasons for things in or out or about the universe, that we will never know. There has been an intentional dishonestly within the chain of knowledge in the US(This is only in the US). To confuse the population of this interpretation and also that the Big Bang Theory states that something came from nothing. F2. The principle of Sufficient Reason refers to a sufficient condition, which is represented as a logical conditional. (Classic Logic) x->y mean that x is the sufficient condition of y, but y is the necessary condition of x. So x is dependent on y. That is if there is no y there is no x. (~y->~x) = (x->y) (Advanced Logic) x is within the framework of y. So Y(x) Where y predicates x. What is important to note is that if God is the cause then he is dependent on what he caused. That is what makes something a cause, is the affect or else it wouldn’t be a cause at all. But this is absurd of any notion of an un-pantheistic God. F3. “Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence” is pure NONSENSE! Why? Because existence, exist!!!!!! Existence=Existence ‘How could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown’ (Parmenides of Elea 500 BCE) Any possible explanation, cause or GOD would not exist. So it’s impossible by any rationality that God exist for even he is no match for the contradiction of existence. When did faith suddenly not become good enough? F4. ‘either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.’ is another Fallacy. Nothing could be a necessary cause in its own nature, for it would violate the principle of sufficient reason. That is as we work down the chain of causes within something there would have to be bottom within it that is uncaused. There eventually it will always depend on a cause. F5 ‘Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence’ Thus if God exist then he would need an explanation, our definition of him is of his existence but not how he began to exist. So this premise will never be true. Doctor Fool: Well it seems this premise had as lease four different types of AIDs! So we must reject this one for the health of Humanity. Oh dear another infection! P2. Dissected and exposed Fallacy=F ‘If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.’ The Con F1 Semantic fallacy Language is made of or organized sets of physical symbols (in this case words) to refer to a reality. Here the word God a physical symbol, is used to back label explanation. But to prove that there is an explanation says nothing about what that explanation is. The word God here only refers at best to an explanation. No other mean can be inferred by this argument. Thus the symbol God refers the word 'explanation' which has no reality. F2 Within universe explanation fallacy One problem is that the ‘explanation itself ‘is in the universe, in the form of a mental conception. So it could never be of the existence of the universe for the universe is the cause of its existence. That the knowledge depends on seeing outside but we are always within. Therefore all such explanations are nonsense. logical form P1. All explanations are in the universe P2. This explanation is God C1. Therefore god is in the Universe!? F3 Let U=universe E=explanation G=God Bold assertion fallacy. ‘If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.’ The Con It is not logically sound that if the universe has an explanation if follows by necessity its GoD!!!!??? NONSENSE! Doctor Fool: Well you only had three in here but at least it’s better than P1. (P2 rejected) But here take some of these pills from the hill and maybe we could save the next one. I get high with a little help from my friends Doctor Fool: oh you look cheery! Maybe a little too cheery! P3 the universe is an existing thing. Doctor Fool: I forgot to mention the Side effects. They are irrationality, ignorance and bold assertions. Could have, would have, should have The Con: Contingent Existence: Existence that could have failed to exist. The Fool: This is nonsense, for the past i locked, that is, it already has happened, aka it’s been determined therefore it could not have been any other way. Post-determination Fallacy The Fool: For what we mean normally is that under different conditions it could have been different. But the conditions have been set already. Therefore it could not have been different. (all past contingencies refuted) It’s sufficient at best! F1. The Con: Necessary Existence - Existence that could not have failed to exist, i.e. existence that is explained by the necessity of its own nature. The Fool: Existence exists by its own nature Nonsense. it is use that define things, but it never follows that something other then universe(all things that exist) exist in its own nature. F2. Fallacy begging the question Since we are in the universe any claim of outside the universe begs the question. F3. Bold assertion fallacy The Con: Note that necessary existence is equivalent to the state of being eternal. The Fool: You can’t dictate truth. Bible distortion F1. The intention of the word universe is to mean all things that exist. The unification of all verses, the word comes about in around 1500’s. There is no Universe in the original bible. It’s just earth and sun. That it! Somebody has been manipulating Gods word. Secondly before the printing press for 1500’a years the bible has been copies, interpreted and translated by hand!!! Most often by people of Governing Authority who have all the reason to change it in their favour. Therefore anything in the bible is at best probabilistic. The certainty of the Bible is FAITH BASED. Therefore not logical, and thus nothing can be used in a logical argument. F2. Subject universal fallacy The Con: A perfect being, or God, exists necessarily because necessary existence is an essential perfection. The Fool: Perfection is a completely subjective term, it doesn’t make sense to say it exist our side of a subjective frame work. Sorry Fool Fans No more room,but the Fool shines on for you! In round 3. Vote for Glory Vote FOOL!