The Logic Table - God Exist (any God) Yes Or No, Hoping to be its own thread! Options

I am creating this topic as a place for people to put arguments based on compounding premises. By that I mean this topic is for logical application to arguments, i.e. reasons for why a god may or may not exist. This is NOT a topic where faith is an axiomatic principle, axiomatic meaning self-evidently true. I'm not against faith but I want a thread area (which I hope this topic eventually evolves into) where I can argue with people who will not say I believe it and the discussion is over.

That being said, this topic/thread is supposed to be completely open-minded. It is a place for people to make arguments and debate them out. Please do not post once, assert something, and never come back. Debate it out, that is the point.

This topic is - God Exist (Any god) Yes or No...

I'll start:

No: the premise that it is necessary for a God to create existence is a false choice. If it is necessary for existence to be created, then it is also necessary for its creator to be created. This principle (when applied more universally than just in reference to religion) is usually called the Primacy of Existence. That is simply existence exists as an axiomatic principle (a self-evident truth). To argue against that (i.e. to say it was created) presupposes that it exists to establish that argument. I.e. God is the creator who created existence, however, if before God there was no existence then where did god exist, in fact how did god exist if there is nothing that existed and if god does not have to have an existence to exist than how is it possible for God to exist, for existence cannot exist in non-existence and it is impossible for non-existence to exist, because it doesn't exist.

Before i turn my attention to ur post, i would want this clarified: do u intend a discussion based on logic, or on philosophy?

I hope u understand u need to do more than just base ur arguments on any philosophical school of thought! It is a gross abuse of common sense when somebody states that "the three axiomatic principles are...", when, in fact, these are naught more than tenets of a particular philosophy!

As for zeno: he was more than just a "follower," he was a disciple of parmenides, and his staunchest supporter and most devoted perpetrator of his cause! what zeno and his teacher did prove, if anything they could prove, was that misapplication of logic (based on unsound premises) spawns fallacious philosophy!