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-FINALLY A SOMEWHAT NEW QUESTION. PERCEPTION IS THE RESULT OF SENSORY PERCEPTION. YOU HAVE FIVE SENSES: SIGHT, TASTE, SMELL, TOUCH, AND HEARING. THESE 5 SENSES ALLOW A CONSCIOUS PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE TO THEN BE IDENTIFIED AND CATEGORIZED. THIS IN COMBINATION WITH VOLITION (THE ABILITY TO REMEMBER AND APPLY CERTAIN PROPERTIES) CREATE THE CONSCIOUS PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE. NOW, AS I HAVE NEVER BEEN A MOUNTAIN I GUESS THAT MY EXAMPLE MAY HAVE BEEN WEAK TO THOSE THAT BELIECE THAT INANIMATE THINGS HAVE THE ABILITY TO PERCEIVE BUT AS I DO NOT THE PRINCIPLE FOLLOWS. IT IS AN ILLUSTRATION NOT A POINT OF FACT. BUT I STILL BEG OF YOU TO TELL ME HOW A MOUNTAIN PERCEIVES AND STORES THE PERCEPTIONS IT MAKES. BASICALLY WHERE IS THE BRAIN OF A MOUNTAIN. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE MOUNTAIN EXAMPLE PICK SOMETHING ELSE, A TABLE, CHAIR WHATEVER, THAT ISN'T THE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT BEING MADE.

--> Do all life forms have a "brain"?

cameron-WHAT? WHAT CHANGES ARE YOU REFERRING TO? IF YOU MEAN LIKE HOW ANIMALS EVOLVE, WELL DARWIN EXPLAINS THAT. THE REASON THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN-EVOLUTION DEBATE MAKES NO SENSE IS THAT THOSE THEORIES CLASH ONLY IN A MINOR LEVEL. EVOLUTION VERY MUCH WORKS WITH A WORLD CREATED BY A GOD (THOUGH IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A GOD. THE POINT I AM MAKING HERE IS THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS A QUESTION OF CREATION/METAPHYSICS WHEREAS DARWINISM IS SIMPLY HOW WE EXIST POST-CREATION). MY ARGUMENT IS SIMPLY THAT THE ARGUMENT OF AN EXISTENCE CREATED BY GOD IS FALSE. EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED (AS EXPLAINED BEFORE) AND THINGS CAN CHANGE WITHIN IT BUT NOTHING CAN BE CREATED INDEPENDENT OF IT. ANIMALS CAN EVOLVE (MOST SCIENTISTS WOULD AGREE WITH MY CLAIMS HERE AS MANY ARE OBJECTIVISTS, THOUGH I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE STUPID QUABBLE OVER ZENO ETC. SO IF YOU CAN'T SIMPLY UNDERSTAND THIS AS A SOURCE REFERENCE THEN IGNORE THIS) BUT JUST BECAUSE ANIMALS CAN EVOLVE DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY ARE FORMED FROM NON-EXISTENCE.

--> I am not talking about animals...i am talking of cosmological evolution...what was the substratum?

cameron-DO YOU CLAIM TO UNDERSTAND THEN THE STATE OF GOD AND UNDERSTAND ALL HIS MISTORIES? DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHING OF THE TIME OF THE DINOSAURS? DOES THAT MEAN THEY ARE WRONG. JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. MY ARGUMENTS ARE SHOWING THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A GOD. EXISTENCE MUST EXIST FOR IT TO NOT EXIST REQUIRES NON-EXISTENCE TO EXIST AND FOR EXISTENCE TO BE CREATED OUT OF IT, BASICALLY CREATING EXISTENCE OUT OF NOTHING. IMAGINE IT THIS WAY: YOU ARE MAKING A CAKE BUT YOU HAVE NO INGREDIENTS AND NO WHERE TO GET THEM. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO MAKE THIS CAKE. YOUR ARGUMENT IS ESSENTIALLY THAT ABOUT 2 HOURS LATER YOU PULLED A CAKE OUT OF YOUR OVEN AND SERVED IT TO THE PARTY. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. WHAT IS EVEN WORSE IS THAT YOU ALLOW THERE TO BE NO PLACE FOR EXISTENCE AS YOU ASSUME THAT THERE IS A NON-EXISTENCE. THIS PLACE YOU CLAIM TO ACCEPT IS ESSENTIALLY A LACK OF EXISTENCE (AM I CORRECT, BECAUSE IF I AM NOT THEN YOU AREN'T DISPROVING MY ARGUMENT) BUT THEN HOW DOES THAT LACK OF EXISTENCE TAKE UP SPACE WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO TAKE UP THAT SPACE. IF IT DOESN'T TAKE UP SPACE, THEN HOW CAN EXISTENCE BE CREATED THERE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO THERE FOR IT TO HAVE BEEN CREATED?

--> The way i look at it, god is beyond space and time, and god created space and time! So there is no need to wonder where and when!

Sounds like magic, and perhaps is! But animate and inanimate entities coming out of "existence" would be nothing other than magic, either!

cameron-NO, TABLES EXIST BUT (AT LEAST I BELIEVE BUT WE MAY HAVE THE STUPID MOUNTAIN DEBATE AGAIN) THEY DON'T HAVE LIFE FORCE. THERE ARE MULTIPLE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, I.E. PRIMORDIAL BUBBLES AND THROUGH EVOLUTION FROM THAT TO BACTERIA TO MODERN LIFE FORMS. BUT IF THIS IS SERIOUSLY YOUR QUESTION, FROM WHAT DID GOD COME FROM, HOW WAS HE CREATED/MADE/THOUGHT OF/WHATEVER, BECAUSE TO ASSUME THAT I HAVE TO KNOW THIS MEANS THAT THERE MUST BE THE SAME OBLIGATION TO YOU. AND MORE SIGNIFICANTLY (THOUGH I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS AN OBJECTIVIST ARGUMENT BUT SOMETHING THAT I HAVE THOUGHT OF A LOT) IF GOD DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CREATED THEN WHY DO WE ASSUME WE HAVE TO HAVE BEEN OR EXISTENCE TO HAVE BEEN? IF WE DON'T NEED AN EXPLANATION FOR GOD THEN WHY FOR EXISTENCE ALWAYS EXISTING?.

--> How did the primordial bubbles come about?

I understand ur concerns...however, i feel i am better justified because god, for me, is alive, able and intelligent, and can thus create animate and inanimate entities! "existence," on the other hand, is not so forunate!

****I personally feel a statement like "energy always existed" makes more sense than "existence aways existed"! After all, as v know it, all things are nothing but manifestation of energy!****

But v all have our own way of thinking...and that, for me, lends even more credibility to god!