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-YES I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT A PREMISE IS A FACTOR OF LOGICAL EQUATION? YES A PREMISE DOES SPAWN PHILOSOPHY, BUT YOU MISUNDERSTAND THAT IT IS THROUGH PREMISES THAT WE CAN DRAW CONCLUSIONS.

--> I said it is by laying the correct premises *and* applying logic that v draw conclusions...or did i say something else?

It's honestly getting boring, and i mean no offense! : thumbs up :

Talking about consciousness...u have provided no explanation of it's origin; all u have done is issued another blanket statement: "IT HAS EXISTED AS AN ABILITY IN EVERYTHING THAT CAN PERCEIVE ITS SURROUNDINGS:

why/how did certain things get the ability to perceive, and certain other (things) did not? And how do u *know* that mountains cannot perceive? Think...think...u don't know this...maybe they can perceive...maybe not...maybe v cannot perceive their perception!

In any case, u have not provided any explanation as to what changes occurred, and what triggered these changes so that "things" (with or without the ability to perceive) were created! These are the kind of holes that first need to be filled in before anybody can venture forth and embrace this kind of metaphysics!

I will say this: I can accept a state when there was no earth, no mountains, no rivers, no trees, no air...nothing! This i call a state of non-being, and only god existed! Thence god created things, and fashioned them, and gave them different abilities; and that, to me, makes more sense than only "existence" existing, where nobody knows what the state of existence was, nor what it means!

Is "existence" something like life force (vital energy)? if yes, then all things are living! if no, then how/why did life get injected into "existence"?

Any case, sincere apologies for sounding/being rude!