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.

cameron-PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS (ESPECIALLY OBJECTIVISM) FORM THEIR IDEOLOGIES AS CHAINS OF LOGIC. OBJECTIVISM SPECIFICALLY BEGINS AS A CHAIN FROM 3 SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS THAT CANNOT BE LOGICALLY PROVEN INCORRECT BECAUSE TO ATTEMPT TO PROVE THEM FALSE REQUIRES FIRST ACCEPTING THEIR TRUTH (I.E. TO SAY EXISTENCE DOESN'T EXIST REQUIRES YOU TO ASSUME THAT YOU EXIST TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT) AND IT BUILDS UPON THOSE SYSTEMS. MY POINTS HAVE BEEN LOGICAL ENDPOINTS OF THESE ARGUMENTS. LOGIC ISN'T ONE STATMENT AT A TIME BUT RATHER A CHAIN, LOGIC IS VERY MUCH LIKE MATH WHERE PRIMISES ARE USED TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS TO BE USED LATER AS PREMISES.

-->Philosophical systems are based not necessarily on logic but on premises (which may lead to application or misapplication of logic)!

Talking about "flying tigers," the flying tigers definitely existed the moment i (or u) perceived them! Further, can i perceive something that was never in existence? Either way, flying tigers exist!

cameron-AS STATED BEFORE. i AM SIMPLY EXPLAINING THE ROOT OF SOME OF MY ARGUMENTS. AND FURTHERMORE THEY ARE TENETS OF THAT PHILOSOPHY ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS. AS STATED ABOVE THEY ARE LOGICALLY PROVEN BY THE FACT THAT TO PROVE THEM FALSE REQUIRES THEIR ACCEPTANCE. YOU WANT AN ANSWER LOOK TO THINGS LIKE THE DIALETIC BY HEGEL AND STOP SAYING THAT BECAUSE I SAID OBJECTIVISM THAT I NOT ARGUING BUT SAYING BOOM I WIN, BECAUSE I AM NOT I AM USING THEIR PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS AS A ROOT FOR MY ARGUMENT JUST AS YOU ARE USING RELIGION FOR YOURS (RELIGION BEING VERY MUCH A PHILISOPHICAL SYSTEM).

-->Saying "I am" does not equal to "I always was and will be"!

The question here is not whether "existence exists," but whether existence has always existed! I hope u understand the difference! If u could prove via "logic" that "existence always existed" instead of just force-approving it as self-evident truth (and thus not violate ur own rule), u would greatly contribute to the furthering of this discussion!

cameron-I UNDERSTAND THIS. ZENO DID NOT USE UNSOUND PREMISES BUT RATHER USED A LOGICAL PRINCIPLE AND THAT IS REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM (REDUCED TO ABSURDITY). NOW MANY OF ZENO'S EXTENSIONS WERE PROVEN WRONG BUT NOT FOR OVER 1000 YEARS LATER WHEN NEWTON DEVISED CALCULOUS AND WAS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS A SET DISTANCE BETWEEN 0 AND 1. IT WASN'T UNFOUND PREMISES BUT SIMPLY ONE UNKNOWN FACT. HOWEVER, THE EXTENSION OF PARMENIDES THAT I AM REFERENCING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ZENO'S EXTENSION ONLY THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE (WHICH HASN'T BEEN PROVEN WRONG BUT SIMPLY HAS COUNTER THEORIES HENCE WHY NO ONE HAS SAID HEY I HAVE SOLVED THE ULTIMATE EXISTENTIAL QUESTION OF ALL TIME) THAT PREMISES BEING THAT EXISTENCE EXISTS. PROVE THIS WRONG AND DON'T CRITICIZE FOLLOWERS OF THEORIES. THAT IS LIKE SAYING THAT WE SHOULD REGARD OSAMA BIN LADEN AS THE PREEMINENT SCHOLAR IN ISLAMIC STUDIES BECAUSE HE USES SOME IDEAS FROM ISLAM AND THEN CREATES HIS OWN LOGICAL ENDPOINTS.

-->That zeno's fallacy was categorically refuted through calculus doesn't at all add to it's glory! It remains that he would lay down an unsound premise to come up with a nonsense conclusion!

Again, nobody is refuting that existence exists. What is being challenged is whether "existence always existed"! Ayn or parmenides can choose to not be able to conceptualize "non-being," but it doesn't amount to much, does it? Please prove the identity of the first existent (evolution of identity), and when it was first perceived (evolution of consciousness)! Also, what role do time and space play?

If u think achilles can never overtake the tortoise...it's ur philospohy; but don't equate criticizing parmenides or zeno with endorsing laden!