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.

NOW FROM THE OBJECTIVIST VIEWPOINT - THERE WAS NO TIME IN WHICH THERE WASN'T EXISTENCE. TO ASSUME THAT THIS IS TRUE ASSUMES THERE WAS A TIME IN WHICH THERE WAS NON-EXISTENCE. SAY THAT PHRASE A FEW TIMES...THERE WAS NON-EXISTENCE...THAT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE. NON-EXISTENCE IS THAT WHICH DOESN'T EXISTENCE SO HOW CAN THERE EXIST SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST TO PRECEDE THE TIME OF EXISTENCE?

Isn't the only other alternative infinite existence? If there is a boundary to existence, then there must have been non-existence, despite the logical problems describing it. Disregarding existence itself, the beginning of the universe would require a suspension of several well-established laws of physics. Perhaps this makes it impossible to formulate any kind of theory, but it would be a discredit to philosophers and scientists both not to try. After all, we've already breached the realm of practicality, what other goal is there but a complete understanding of everything?

Isn't the only other alternative infinite existence? If there is a boundary to existence, then there must have been non-existence, despite the logical problems describing it. Disregarding existence itself, the beginning of the universe would require a suspension of several well-established laws of physics. Perhaps this makes it impossible to formulate any kind of theory, but it would be a discredit to philosophers and scientists both not to try. After all, we've already breached the realm of practicality, what other goal is there but a complete understanding of everything?

AHH, YOU HAVE SHOWN MY POINT. EXISTENCE IS INFINITE. READ LIKE TWO POSTS BACK OF MINE WHERE I ARGUE THIS OUT. EXISTENCE ALWAYS WAS, IS, AND WILL BE AND THERE IS NO LIMIT TO EXISTENCE.

NOW YOUR SECOND POINT BASIS ITSELF UPON A THEORY OF A BEGINNING OF EXISTENCE, I SAY THERE IS NO BEGINNING BUT EXISTENCE IS INFINITE. IT WASN'T CREATED, HENCE WHY THESE ARGUMENTS ARE A REFUTATION OF CREATION THEORY AND HENCE GOD. NOW LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE SIMPLY WAYS OF DESCRIBING EXISTENCE. IT IS CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDENTITY FUNCTIONING AS ONE TO DESCRIBE EXISTENCE. MORE SIGNIFICANTLY IS THAT THEY ARE ESTABLISHED TO ALLOW US TO COPE WITH EXISTENCE NOT MASTER IT AS WE CAN'T, EXISTENCE HAS PRIMACY OVER THE OTHER AXIOMS.