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

Let's examine the philosophies of The Fool™ and see if the height of The Hill™ he transcends mere mortals or just has his head in the clouds.Fool's GoldIf it looks like gold and feels like gold, it must be gold, unless of course it's pyrite. Pyrite surely resembles gold, but anyone with any sort of training or experience in precious metals will quickly recognize the difference. That's why it was called fool's gold. Not because it looked and felt exactly like gold, but because "fools" were a little too quick—and perhaps greedy—to consider themselves rolling in the bling-bling.Sometimes, reality does not coincide with our categories. The Fool™ is right: no matter how the fool wishes, desires, and believes that he holds his early retirement in his hand, it doesn't change the fact that his fool's gold is worth noting at all.And so it goes with language. Language is a convention that symbolizes reality, and sometimes our terms are fool's gold, falling short of the reality of that definition. At least, that's the idea according to The Fool™. So what is the point of all this?Your guess is as good as mine. 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.Perhaps 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.It'll be interesting to see whether or not this Rhetoric From the Hill™ actually bears any weight on this debate. For now, it remains either wholly inapplicable or damaging to his position.The Fool™ Speaks1. This is a logical argument.The Fool: I feel much better now that you have said that.The pleasure is all mine.2. You must use logical laws to refute a logical argument.The Fool: it would be helpful with a successful refutation. Agreed!It's good to see that reason is deemed valuable and necessary on The Hill™.3. 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?!That won't be necessary. The laws of logic will suffice. At least you didn't deny logic's transcendental necessity.4. Abstract entities are products of thought.The Fool: it was just a joke! They can be abstracted by material relations as just the same.ab·stract. adj. Considered apart from concrete existence. [1]The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.abstract. adj. Having no reference to material objects or specific examples; not concrete [1]Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003Perhaps one requires a dictionary from The Hill™ to explain how an abstract entity can be material given the very definition of abstract.The Fool: we understand everything in a framework of thought but it doesn’t follow that they only exist as such.They can't be material, since that would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction. So, what else could they be? Do they have their own independent existence? If so, might some philosophy Straight From the Hill™ shed some light on what else abstract entities might be?5. Products of thought necessitate a mind.The Fool: Switch! The mind is the necessary condition of thought.The Fool™ has repeating my premise. The mind is indeed the necessary precondition of thought. All hail The Hill™.6. 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.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. If there are invariant and universal abstract entities, then the mind from whence they come must also be invariant and universal. Our minds can appeal to these entities, but that doesn't account for their nature.7. 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.If a mind is necessary to account for invariant and universal entities, then it follows that it not be a part of this physical universe because this physical universe is constantly changing. Also, immaterial does not mean "does not exist." [2]8. 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?I am proving God. Perhaps there are philosophy lessons on The Hill™ regarding propositional logic. This is prima facie true. If there is no God of any kind, then there is no immaterial, invariant, and universal mind.9. 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.If P, then Q. Q is definitely true if P is true because we already dealt with the transcendental necessity of abstract objects earlier. To defeat this premise, you must defeat any one of premises 1 through 7. This is another propositional statement that is prima facie true.Review of The Fool’s main arguments.1. I have demonstrated that logical relations are not necessary dependent on the mind. They can be abstracted physically.This "demonstration" was a single sentence that contradicts the very definition of abstract.2. A definition of god is symbolization of what a word refers to but doesn’t necessary related to any reality.We can say the same for any word. This is a tautology.3. 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.Indeed, God is the presupposition. The argument is that assuming God is the only way to refute the argument.4. 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.Just because our minds interact with matter doesn't mean all minds do. Fallacy of Hasty Generalization.5. 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.Another tautology Straight from The Hill™, not a refutation.6. 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.This is not circular at all. It is a transcendental argument: The necessary precondition of Q, is P. P is true. Therefore, Q is true. In this case, the necessary precondition of logical laws is a universal, invariant, immaterial mind. The presupposition that God exists meets that precondition. The presupposition that God does not exist fails to meet that precondition. Ergo, by process of elimination, God must exist.Sources http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...