Sorry Darth -- That's Not What a Syllogism Is.

Darth is an imbecile.  I find it very difficult to take a man seriously when they speak as if they know something, and at worst being in his 60s, pretends as if they know, when they in fact do not know.  I was listening to one of the videos by Tom Rabbit where Darth wanted to syllogistically explain God.  The video is found here, and the beginning of his syllogism is at 5:47. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt9qbg8FYEw&t=347s

The issue is that his premesis of syllogism doesn't actually work as a syllogism.  That isn't how formal arguments work Darth.  I wrote down exactly what was said, albeit, with some difficulty due to all the interruptions and the word salad given by Darth.  I consolidated what he said (as his syllogism mind you) and wrote it down exactly what he said, with exception being where he had to repeat himself to continue the sentence.  You can confirm yourself with the link above that I have done my absolute best to not take Darth out of context, and simply write the syllogism down as thoroughly as possible so that way we know the premesis of his conclusion. Without these repeats and interruptions, this is what he said:

1. Premise 1: If the Christian God exists with his property set; all his attributes together, everything together. He instantiates his existence by virtue of making the creation indicate and reveal him in an undeniable way.
2. Premise 2: The creation undeniably and irrefutably is indicative and relavatory by his purpose because these things are quantifiable entity.  If they didn't reveal God as the eternal, then they couldn't be natured entities.
3. Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

What is undeniably frustrating is that this isn't how syllogisms are formed.  Syllogisms, on both premesis requires a subject and a predicate as stated in Aristotle's Organon, the basis of how a syllogism is formed.  It is through the combination of both the subject and a predicate that assertions are formed; the subject is the thing the assertion is about, and the predicate is the claim made about the subject.  Example:

1. Premise 1: Every planet in the solar system goes around the sun.
   1. Subject: Planet
   2. Predicate: (around the) Sun
2. Premise 2: Everything that goes around the sun has an orbital period.
   1. Subject: (around the) Sun
   2. Predicate: Orbital period
3. Conclusion: Every planet in the solar system has a solar period.

You will notice I have the subject which is clearly stated and a formal predicate in each premise. Both of which are logically sound, output to a logical conclusion.  Now if the beginning of a premise begins with an "if", it's immediately an incorrect premise because it assumes the conclusion.  This is the issue. Darth does this all the time.  His argumentation comes from an air of presuppositionalism which is independent of any syllogistic reasoning.  The premise in its own merit is "God exists."  You don't even have to believe me and you could say: "You're just twisting what words Darth says out of his mouth."  when in reality, it comes DIRECTLY from Darth!  Even his first premise makes no sense, in that it isn't even a coherent statement.  Let's break it down:

If the Christian God exists with his property set; all his attributes together, everything together. He instantiates his existence by virtue of making the creation indicate and reveal him in an undeniable way.

"If the Christian God exists with his property set;..." Of course obviously right in his initial premise he bakes into the premise that God exists, being his conclusion, which a syllogism is there to inform to a logical conclusion, and not baked in the initial premise.  Assuming if God DID exist, and that we DID accept this initial claim, separate from syllogism, we can continue on with his sentence.

"...All his attributes together, everything together."

This portion simply speaks about the entity that is "God" and explains that it is effectively everything with all of his properties, whatever those may be.  Continuing on...

"He instantiates his existence by virtue of making the creation indicate and reveal him in an undeniable way."

This would be more suitable as a conclusion than "Therefore God exists."  Yet we're not even at premise 2 yet! We're at premise 1! What book on syllogisms have you read Darth? What philosophy books have you read? Seeing this "syllogism" tells me you have no idea what you are talking about, and just as any other presuppositionalist, you simply bake the conclusion in the statement, making any argument unfalsifiable.

Because you make your claims unfalsifiable, that means there can be absolutely nothing to argue with, as you have unfalsifiability in your claim.  There is NOTHING that could convince you God does not exist, with or without logical syllogism.  So anyone who can try to argue, and even if they have sound conclusions, you will ultimately not be convinced Darth, no matter what.  So in the aspect that you could be an honest interlocutor, you absolutely are not.  Anyone who treats you like an honest interlocutor is clearly in for a doozy, as no logical path (by your very own words of presupposing conclusions — Noting that the basis of Presuppositionalism is to "presuppose" God, which is so engrained it is baked into the name of your philosophy).

How can you argue honestly for the existence of God if you simply "presuppose" God's existence in premesis?