LOGOS argument proves God exists. What do you think?

[Wade12345]

1) Let us define LOGOS (all caps) as "The rational principle which governs reality."

2) Let us define logos (Lower case) as "The rational principle which governs human sentience."

3) It becomes self-evident that "logos" is a sub-set of "LOGOS".

4) Therefore, the LOGOS has the property of Sentience because it contains the logos which also has the property of sentience.

5) Therefore, the LOGOS is an intelligent CREATOR.

6) Therefore, the LOGOS is God.

7) Therefore, God exists.

Updates

+1 y

Yesss, I see the atheist naysayers are stumped this time.

You people are silly. When you don't know that you don't know what you're talking about, you insult me and God both. Now that I've formulated an irrefutable argument, you realize I'm correct, so you've decided not to post.

I win, and God wins, as usual.

God is awesome. Atheists suck.

Updates

+1 y

whether or not the fools below me realize this, the word "LOGOS" in Greek already means "The rational principle which governs reality".

I was just restating that for the reader's own benefit.

[Effably]

... Is this a jest?

1 and 2 are premises without any real merit. Ultimately fine for a theoretical consideration but that's it.
Really you're just saying that the world is determined by something rational and then saying that human thought is also determined by something rational. I do not think anyone will claim it can't be so fine.

3. Is somewhat acceptable. It is based on our made up premises and so is really just a subjective take. But sure, if the universe is logical by default and humans are part of that we are probably also bound by similar logic.

4. Is gibberish and a textbook petitio principii or circular argument fallacy or nonsense depending on how technical we want to be. You claiming that something is real because your other claim would make that make sense is something you wouldn't get away with in a debate with 12 year olds.

5. Absolute jump in logic, based on an irrational fallacy. Same applies to the other points.

Now rather than belittle you, any religious believers or such I am more inclined to believe you're an atheist and taking the piss by basically repeating the "God exists because the bible says so and it was written, in proxy, by God because it says so!" argument.

If this is not for comedic purposes let me know and maybe we can cover what some common logical fallacies together. If it is just you trolling, well played.

[Wade12345]

You're an idiot. Reported for trolling and blocked.

[Wade12345]

Oh noes, look guys.

The Atheist thinks labeling everything a "fallacy" is a valid argument.

That isn't even my own definition, that's a Greek definition of the word LOGOS. I just restated it for your own benefit.

3 and 4 follow rationally from 1 and 2.

5-7 follow rationally from 3 and 4.

I don't care what a 12 years old believes. A 12 years old is in no position to debate with the Almighty God.

[Wade12345]

Fred Hoyle Calculated the Carbon 12 Resonance based on his belief that an Almighty God created everything, and that the Big Bang alone could not explain the existence of Carbon and Life.

He got the number exactly right, and it was tested a few years later in a particle accelerator and found to be exactly correct.

The fact a Christian Scientist could rationally derive all the elemental resonances ahead of time through reason, before they were actually discovered, shows the Universe is RATIONAL and is not a shit storm of random chance.

You retarded Atheists need to repent of your abject stupidity.

[Wade12345]

Nuclear Fusion is absolutely evidence of intelligent design of the entire Universe and everything about it.

Fusion of old atoms into new atoms and new elements only happens at precise temperatures and pressures. Too much heat and the atoms photodisintegrate. Too little heat and nothing at all happens. It's a very, very fine-tuned structure of the Universe to make Carbon for anything remotely resembling human life to exist.

[Wade12345]

Where do you think Fallacies come from anyway? They come from the LOGOS too. The True Creator, while not being a LIar, created the capacity to tell a lie when he created free moral agents outside Himself. Therefore Logical Fallacies are ironically a sub-set of True Logic.

Example:

The fact you can make a mistake about a topic or even tell a lie about the topic proves the Truth of the matter actually exists, whether or not you already know the Truth.

[Effably]

Trolling, but very passionate. Not breaking character is a nice touch.

A fallacy is simply flawed logic. Or course that matters when arguing.

[Anonymous]

Close one. Really. You've got some of it figured out, but not completely. That first verse of John is a logic puzzle about logic (and, of course, God), but it takes a bit more knowledge about the Bible and its history to fully understand. In Hebrew, the first sentence of the Bible says "Bereshith bara elohim et hashamyim v'et haaretz" which word-for-word translates to "In the beginning created gods, the heavens, and the earth". But bereshith has another possible translation, which is "the principal or principality". John says "in the beginning" was the Logos, and that it was with God, and that it was God. So Bereshith is Logic, and Logic is God. In John's apocrypha, Christ refers to God as "pure, unlimited mind". It makes much more sense that God created gods (angels by our thinking. Notice that most angelic names contain -el as in Michael, Azazel, Gabriel) the heavens, and the earth.

Where I'll disagree with you here is that something created by a higher being having a particular trait doesn't mean the higher being has that trait.

The Bible is a puzzle. Sort of a spiritual IQ test. That's why Christ said to SEEK and you shall find, ASK and you shall receive, KNOCK and the door will be answered... but you first must have ears to hear and eyes to see.

[Wade12345]

You realize sometimes the sub-set and the super-set are one and the same, but you can't prove that until you carry out the entire thought experiment and problem solving scenario.

[Opinion Owner]

I completely agree. But by presenting an idea that's possibly true, but not necessarily, you open the door for your argument to be turned back against you. That will lose more battles than it wins.

[Opinion Owner]

God's greatest argument is right there in the Bible. It's absolutely airtight such that it's undeniable once it's seen for what it is. To lead people to that truth, we must also be logically sound from all angles. As it is above, so must it be below.

[Wade12345]

Well, it's true that Angels would be called "lesser gods" in any pagan religion, and I do believe in Angels because I've actually seen several of them in Visions which told me the future, so I know they are real and are given Divine Knowledge for a specific purpose from the True Creator God.

Still, we should not worship Angels any more than we should worship prophets. The Biblical prophets are all named after God too, and typically have the name "El" or "Jah" or "Iah" as part of their own name. For example, the name "EliJah" actually means "Yahweh is God", while "Eli" means "God Exists".

[Opinion Owner]

You're just barely scratching the surface, though. There are two "gods" in the Bible (if we accept that the 'gods' in the first sentence are the angels). One is the true God, our Father. The other is an imposter whose stated purpose is to "place his throne above God". It's our job to figure out who's who. All the clues are there, and they can be deciphered using our God-given logic. All of those contradictions are there for good reason. The symbology is purposeful. The comparisons. The contrasts. The names and name changes. All of them are there to point your way to the truth.

[behnam1999]

But how can we for example prove that LOGOS is omnipotent, or omniscient? Or it is the God that is talked about in Christianity?

Don't get it wrong. I'm not an atheist, I'm just trying to challenge this argument to see if it has flaws or not.

[Wade12345]

In the sense that I'm a mortal and do not know everything (nor could any mortal know everything) the argument is flawed.

I am a Deist, though I used to be a Christian. I have never once heard of a formal argument to prove that the "Christian God" is the correct one, but there are formal arguments to prove that the "Christian God' is not the correct one.

For example, Christianity claims that Jesus alleged death and resurrection "fulfills" the old testament law and prophets.

Judaism and the Rabbi's reject Jesus for several reasons:

1) God is not a man (Numbers 23:19).

2) Immanuel is not the Messiah. IN context, Isaiah 7: 14 in Hebrew says "The Young Woman shall conceive..." and if you read the entire context, it's clear Isaiah was talking about his own wife and child, not a promise of a Messiah, as Immanuel was given as a sign that the invading armies would be defeated and ISRAEL would be freed. Moreover, in the next chapter Isaiah re-tells the "sign" in a slightly different way, and says, "I found my wife, the prophetess in question, to NOT be a virgin..."

[behnam1999]

What do you think about the cosmological argument?

[Wade12345]

I often use several versions of the Cosmological Argument. I think it's preferred that the Cosmological Argument be presented to every person at least one time in their lifetime.

[Wade12345]

Evidence Jesus was not the Messiah and definitely was not "God in the Flesh".

1) Jesus misquoted several of the Ten Commandments.
2) Jesus definitely did not know Microbes caused disease.
3) Jesus own disciples admitted, in the Gospels and in Acts, that neither Jesus nor his disciples passed basic education, admitting that they were "unlearned and ignorant men", and that Jesus of Nazareth could not even read letters, according to one of the Gospel authors own admission.
4) Jesus was not 50 years old, which meant that he was not qualified to be a Rabbi for that reason, even if he had passed school.
5) Jesus is not qualified to be the "High Priest" of anyone's confession, because Jesus is not born of the correct Tribe to be the High Priest.
6) Paul falsely claimed that Melchizidek lived forever, and that Jesus was a "Priest after the order of Mechizidek," just because the Book of Genesis failed to give his age. LOL. How freaking wrong and ridiculous is that? By the way, that's not a scripture in the Law or prophets, so I don't know where Paul got that quote from. It's something he made up out of whole cloth. The Law clearly says the High Priest must be not only a Levite, but a specific family of Levites, specific to the family of Aaron.

[Wade12345]

IN comparison to all of that, the author of the Book of Ezekiel and the Hebrew Language itself, were somehow Inspired by the REAL GOD to both tell a real prophecy and real prose and at the same time portray a pictogram of several Cherubims and an Egyptian Pyramid when lined up correctly. The ONLY way an entire book of that size could be that perfect is if it were in fact INSPIRED by THE All-knowing God.

The Book of Ezekiel does not say that you are saved by anyone's sacrifices, nevermind any human sacrifice of a future messiah. Instead, the book says several times in several chapters that you are saved by your own good works and you are damned by your own evil works. In addition, the Book of Ezekiel directly REBUKES the doctrines of Original Sin and Total Depravity, while the authors of the New TEstament definitely taught total depravity and original sin, especially Paul in Romans and Hebrews definitely taught Original Sin and Total Depravity.

"God does not hold the sins of the fathers against the sons, nor the sins of the sons against the fathers." - Ezekiel.

"For in Adam all have sinned." - Paul.

Those two passages flatly contradict one another.

EVERYTHING that Almighty God created was both Spiritually and efficiently GOOD when He Created it. Every human being chooses to either be good or evil of their own free will, an dnobody was "created evil" by the physical act of conception of their parents nor their parents nor the first man and woman's sins.

[Wade12345]

The book of Deuteronomy gives every human being a choice between good and evil, life and death.

This is why Jewish Rabbis reject Total Depravity and Original Sin. If you were totally depraved, you would be incapable of making a good choice, and that would defeat the purpose of the book of Deuteronomy.

This means Calvinism is a false doctrine, and really an entirely false religion.

[NathanDavis]

I am LOGOS

[Wade12345]

God is not a man. Reported and Blocked.

[NathanDavis]

God is a LOGOS

[NathanDavis]

I am LOGOS, therefore you are logos