The validity (containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived) of the following?

True on all accounts. What is the source?

And is your final statement in response to those that automatically dismiss anything having to do with God and/or religion?

I am an agnostic, not a fool, I accept knowledge, whatever the source.

Those that dismiss anything simply due to the source can never be wise.

"A wiseman will listen and can learn from a fool. A fool is one who will not listen"

OK: a syllogism presenting the basis or substance of a believed description as proposition for action (a belief) consists of two or more substantive 'premises' (other believed descriptions as proposition for action) are given as understanding for the belief. A+B=C

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

'A. There is no calamity greater than lavish desires.

B. There is no greater guilt than discontentment.

C. And there is not greater disaster than greed.

D. From the deepest desires often come the deadliest hate.

Word definer: [And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.]

E. For greed all nature is too little.

F. Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.'

Offered description for belief proposition (conclusion): possessions are of the root of the unwholesome (morbidity)

I'm sorry, this is nothing but unsubstantiated opinions.

For example -- you say "there is no calamity greater than lavish desire." Why? Says who? It is "Lavish desires" that gave rise to every single improvement in the human condition. You can't make claims without backing them up. Why is there no greater disaster than greed? I can actually think of a variety of disasters of greater magnitude.

This whole piece is rambling, disjointed, illogical and solipsistic.

None of those are "inevitably" actually or pretend so that they are all "contingent" and are the two likely and accessible. None of those are literally previous a reasonable doubt. i'm conversing in epistemic terminology.

I like poetry mucho mucho.

What? You want to logically deduce a conclusion from a poem?

Validity is a property of deductive arguments.

You did not present a deductive argument.

Therefore, validity cannot apply to what you presented.

With ur last statement, it seems appropriate that this "open question" becomes just a "question".