Bye Bye Ape Man!!!

[JamesDaJust]

So did God make Himself, or did he always exist?

In the begining was the Word; the Word was with God and the Word was God;

 

[Skaloop]

Genesis 1:27 So God created eth ha adam in His own image, in the image of God created He him;
Sure could make the case.

Yeah, a case for crap.

 

[Brennin]

Why? Because you say so?

Fine then. Faeries are self-existent. There you go.

Or maybe God was created by the Uber-God who presides over the Ubernatural. The Uber-God was created by the super-Uber-God who presides in the super-ubernatural. I can propose nonsense as well.

If the Ontological Argument is valid, and I think it is, then there is only one such being.

 

[The Bellman]

If the Ontological Argument is valid, and I think it is, then there is only one such being.

Wow. There's someone who still thinks the ontological argument is valid.

 

[Brennin]

Wow. There's someone who still thinks the ontological argument is valid.

There are several of us, actually.

 

[The Bellman]

There are several of us, actually.

No doubt. Flat earthers have their own web site, too.

 

[Brennin]

No doubt. Flat earthers have their own web site, too.

Flat earthers do not have a Kurt Gödel equivalent.

 

[Skaloop]

There are several of us, actually.

And you're all wrong.

 

[Brennin]

And you're all wrong.

No, but you are welcome to that fantasy if it nurses your house-of-straw strong atheism.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I think debating the existence of God is pointless. Either you accept it on faith or you dont. At least creationism and Noah's flood and even to some extent Jesus can be addressed with historical or scientific evidence. God is beyond this debate. God can only be addressed with faith and maybe logic. And since when has logic alone proved or disproved anything?

 

[Skaloop]

No, but you are welcome to that fantasy if it nurses your house-of-straw strong atheism.

And you yours.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If the Ontological Argument is valid, and I think it is, then there is only one such being.

His name is Fred; he delivers my mail.

 

[DMagoh]

DMagoh doesn't know much about biology, so I wouldn't take anything he says as much more than a self-righteous spatter.

Christianity has no place for lies.

mpok1519 doesn't know much about Christianity, so I wouldnt take anything he says as much more than self-deceived spittle.

 

[The Bellman]

mpok1519 doesn't know much about Christianity, so I wouldnt take anything he says as much more than self-deceived spittle.

Unfortunately, the level of mpok1519's knowledge regarding Christianity is not in evidence, so we can't say that he doesn't know much about it. The level of your knowledge regarding biology is in evidence, and we can all say that you don't know much about it.

 

[Elduran]

Where did the original matter/energy in the universe come from? You don't know. Not only do you not know, you dont even have a clue. Not even a hint. Nothing. Nada. Naught. Null. Zero. Zilch.

You know why? Because according to the natural laws of science, something can't appear from nothing. That only leaves the supernatural. You dont want to face that fact. It makes you uncomfortable. But it's obvious. Your own natural laws point to the obvious fact that the universal began supernaturally.

The original matter/energy had to come from somewhere. For it to have just "popped up", it would have to be supernatural. All this time, you have been trying to "measure energy with a yardstick". You are trying to measure and test the supernatural with natural laws. It isnt going to happen. It is an impossible quandary. You refuse to believe in the supernatural, because the natural cannot measure it. But if, for the sake of argument, there is the supernatural, natural would not be able to measure it. You are in a catch-22 unless you give up the facade that that only thing that can exist are things that can be explained by the finite human mind. That is the ultimate arrogance, to think that if the finite human mind cannot comprehend something, it cannot exist. Especially when your own natural laws point to the obvious fact that the universal began supernaturally.

"We don't know" does NOT mean "therefore it must have been supernatural".

That's just ridiculous, and you should be ashamed of yourself for getting it wrong after so many corrections so far.

Get a real argument or give up, this one's well and truly destroyed already.

 

[mpok1519]

lol I dont know anything about Christianity? Really? What makes you say that?

oh wait, you were just kidding or just misinformed. But thats okay.

=)

 

[Dal M.]

No, but you are welcome to that fantasy if it nurses your house-of-straw strong atheism.

Well, it really looks like you are wrong. The Argument from Ontology is possibly the single least credible argument for the existence of God, given that it pretty much boils down to this: we can imagine things into existence provided the things we're imagining are good enough.

At least that's my Philosophy 101 understanding of it. Could you elaborate any further on your reasons for supporting the argument, and which formulation of the argument do you support?

 

[Loudmouth]

If the Ontological Argument is valid, and I think it is, then there is only one such being.

The Ontological Argument is the tightest circular argument in existence. It boils down to, "If we adopt the existence of God as an axiom then God exists." As your own link states:

"Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists. "

IOW, if we assume God exists then God exists.

 

[Nathan Poe]

IOW, if we assume God exists then God exists.

Well, Right now I'm assuming a chocolate fudge sundae in front of me, and it hasn't manifested itself yet -- ergo, the Ontological Argument is false.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, Right now I'm assuming a chocolate fudge sundae in front of me, and it hasn't manifested itself yet -- ergo, the Ontological Argument is false.

Keep watching.