Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[sealybobo]

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Why can't science see what created us? Why can't we figure it out? Is this "creator" intelligent? Do you believe in heaven and hell?

Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that. We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical. Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.

And without religion, there is no reason to argue. Right? You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't. Right?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion.

How we were created is exactly the question our ancient ancestors asked and they came up with "must have been a god or creator".

The other reason it matters is theists have a bogus creation story which leads us to believe that the story was the best they could come up with back at that time when they didn't know about science.

Why did the lightening strike down grampa? Zeus wanted him. Why did the drought or famine kill so many of us? Because we were bad. The Lion dragged dad off? That's ok, he's with the other warriors in the sky and one day we will join him.

sealybobo, why are you afraid to just simply state the facts of existence and origin in an objective way without bias? A rose is a rose. Keep it simple and objective. When you go off on your tangents making subjective, personal opinions about the origin of existence as if they were absolute truths you're essentially claiming to be the origin of the universe.

Did you cause your own existence? No you didn't. Do you recognize like everybody else that there must be something uncaused that has always existed either material or immaterial? Yes you do. Do you believe this something is material? Yes you do. And so you also believe that it could be the other option, immaterial? Yes you do.

There you have it. That's the situation.

Huh?

Ok, so my parents had to breed to have me. Something must have created them and so on.

So who gave birth to god? Can't have it both ways.

So you are saying "the creator" is eternal? Why can't the universe be eternal instead? In other words, in a trillion years this planet might be turned to dust and our sun will burn out, but everything will be recycled and maybe one day eventually the rock that we call earth will end up on some other planet that is in the goldilock zone away from a sun and life happens again somewhere out there in space or in another universe on the other side of a black hole. What you see around you might not aways be there but time space and matter have always been and will always be.

Even though there is very little life in space, I say "life will continue". But actually, no life will mostly continue. If you look out in space, you'll see we are all alone. But there are I"m sure thousands of other planets out there with life on them. One day they'll die too and somewhere else in another universe or on the other side of a black hole life will start again.

But you'll be dead just like the frog or fish or turkey you ate. You are just a human. Boy do you theists think a lot of yourselves.

 

[sealybobo]

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

Science says that it is wishful thinking. Humans have always looked up and wondered. That's not proof there is a god. That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.

I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists. Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists. Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware? So what? And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too. As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?

And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator. There might be one, but who knows?

Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind? He sure does. Does that mean god is real? Nope.

Well, you come back around to my point. The 'self' exists "only in your mind". Does that mean it isn't real? My own view is that gods, if they do exist as distinct entities, are something like distributed minds, populating the brains of believers.

My grandmothers "self" died about 5 years ago. Now the worms are eating what's left of her. I'd love to think there is a heaven where someday I'll join her but I know that's just wishful thinking. But I'm ok with that.

 

[Justin Davis]

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

So I asked you for 3 and you gave me one and that one has flaws.

Number 26 Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

Why there is no god

What utter nonsense this is. There is no such thing as evidence for God having a fatal flaw. That's gibberish, meaningless.

 

[sealybobo]

What created us? The universe. What created the universe or the big bang? Don't know. To put GOD in the blank is just ignorant. Better to admit we don't know and keep looking.

 

[sealybobo]

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

So I asked you for 3 and you gave me one and that one has flaws.

Number 26 Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

Why there is no god

What utter nonsense this is. There is no such thing as evidence for God having a fatal flaw. That's gibberish, meaningless.

I said there is no evidence of god that doesn't have some fatal flaw to it. I'm talking about the evidence not your god. Relax.

However, I do agree your god is flawed.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – Epicurus

 

[sealybobo]

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

So I asked you for 3 and you gave me one and that one has flaws.

Number 26 Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

Why there is no god

What utter nonsense this is. There is no such thing as evidence for God having a fatal flaw. That's gibberish, meaningless.

The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.

 

[sealybobo]

God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.
In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

 

[sealybobo]

“Because if the only way the supreme creator of the entire universe can demonstrate his existence to me is to create images of Mary or Jesus on food items, I’m not impressed.” – Anonymous

 

[sealybobo]

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

Science says that it is wishful thinking. Humans have always looked up and wondered. That's not proof there is a god. That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.

I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists. Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists. Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware? So what? And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too. As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?

And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator. There might be one, but who knows?

Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind? He sure does. Does that mean god is real? Nope.

Science doesn't say anything. Science doesn't even do anything. We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical. sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham

Creation science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP! LOL.

 

[Justin Davis]

So who gave birth to god?

You tell me. It's your idea. Do you or do you not exist? Yes. You exist. Have you always existed? No you haven't. Has something material or immaterial always existed? Yes ….. or are you saying "no, we came from nothing." Make up your mind.

How do some people manage to tie their shoes is what I'm wondering?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

Prolly not. But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.

It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.

Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.

"Prolly not is wrong." Don't let that guy fool ya. His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread. The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.

So are the facts and arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, space alien abductions and the zombie apocalypse, at least according to the nutbars who believe in those things. Strange how your claims to magical gods are no more or less absurd than the claims of other nutbars.

Strange, that.

What's strange is that you would make THAT absurd and factually false "argument" in support of your "position."

Whereas there exists NO credible provable (verifiable) "facts" or "evidence" for the existence of a Bigfoot (and zero arguments worthy of the term "logic") for the existence of a Bigfoot or Zombies or alien abductions, there remains one pretty viable argument based on fact in support of the existence of "God" (although it is not a "proof" by any means).

That you might not find that ultimate factual underpinning supportive of the proposition that 'God exists' is ok. As I noted, the facts and arguments do not qualify as a "proof." But they do lead to a conclusion (if you are being honest and open-minded) that the explanation for all of creation absent a God is no stronger than the explanation for all of creation premised on a God.

 

[dblack]

... That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.

That's one definition of God. It seems there are others.

What are they? I'll tell you what they are. They are variations that all come down to these two options. There are no other options. That's it.

? what two options?

 

[Justin Davis]

Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

Prolly not. But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.

It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.

Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.

"Prolly not is wrong." Don't let that guy fool ya. His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread. The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.

So are the facts and arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, space alien abductions and the zombie apocalypse, at least according to the nutbars who believe in those things. Strange how your claims to magical gods are no more or less absurd than the claims of other nutbars.

Strange, that.

What's strange is that you would make THAT absurd and factually false "argument" in support of your "position."

Whereas there exists NO credible provable (verifiable) "facts" or "evidence" for the existence of a Bigfoot (and zero arguments worthy of the term "logic") for the existence of a Bigfoot or Zombies or alien abductions, there remains one pretty viable argument based on fact in support of the existence of "God" (although it is not a "proof" by any means).

That you might not find that ultimate factual underpinning supportive of the proposition that 'God exists' is ok. As I noted, the facts and arguments do not qualify as a "proof." But they do lead to a conclusion (if you are being honest and open-minded) that the explanation for all of creation absent a God is no stronger than the explanation for all of creation premised on a God.

Sigh.

Proofs for God's existence based on the evidence of the existence of the universe itself absolutely do exist and they are absolutely, justifiably true under the rules of organic/classical logic. You don't know what you’re talking about. This fact has already been established on this thread by people who know what they're talking about.

These proofs are simply not proofs under the rules of science. That’s all, because science can only deal with direct evidence from which only empirical theories can be inferred.

Why do people keep inserting subjective opinions into the equation and confuse what is an objective and simple matter? You're coming onto this thread late in the game repeating things that have already been falsified.

 

[Justin Davis]

... That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.

That's one definition of God. It seems there are others.

What are they? I'll tell you what they are. They are variations that all come down to these two options. There are no other options. That's it.

? what two options?

Something has always existed or we came from nothing. Which is it? If something that has always existed, is it material or transcendent? Why are you struggling with this?

 

[BreezeWood]

It's in the Bible!

Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

is that the christian / bible or a different one ? - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.

as is the presumption of the threads title.

.

What are you talking about? After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?

proof of the existence of the Almighty does not verify your bible as a meaningful document for the understanding of life or as a means for Admission to the Everlasting and to the contrary has over time been the obstacle for enlightenment.

.

 

[dblack]

... That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.

That's one definition of God. It seems there are others.

What are they? I'll tell you what they are. They are variations that all come down to these two options. There are no other options. That's it.

? what two options?

Something has always existed or we came from nothing. Which is it? If something that has always existed, is it material or transcendent? Why are you struggling with this?

I'm not 'struggling'. I just wasn't sure what you were referring to in your post. As I said, I don't think the question of creation is the same as the question of the existence of gods. I think they are likely completely unrelated.

 

[Hollie]

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

So I asked you for 3 and you gave me one and that one has flaws.

Number 26 Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

Why there is no god

What utter nonsense this is. There is no such thing as evidence for God having a fatal flaw. That's gibberish, meaningless.

There's lots of evidence to define your gods as incompetent "designers".

 

[Hollie]

Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

Prolly not. But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.

It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.

Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.

"Prolly not is wrong." Don't let that guy fool ya. His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread. The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.

So are the facts and arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, space alien abductions and the zombie apocalypse, at least according to the nutbars who believe in those things. Strange how your claims to magical gods are no more or less absurd than the claims of other nutbars.

Strange, that.

What's strange is that you would make THAT absurd and factually false "argument" in support of your "position."

Whereas there exists NO credible provable (verifiable) "facts" or "evidence" for the existence of a Bigfoot (and zero arguments worthy of the term "logic") for the existence of a Bigfoot or Zombies or alien abductions, there remains one pretty viable argument based on fact in support of the existence of "God" (although it is not a "proof" by any means).

That you might not find that ultimate factual underpinning supportive of the proposition that 'God exists' is ok. As I noted, the facts and arguments do not qualify as a "proof." But they do lead to a conclusion (if you are being honest and open-minded) that the explanation for all of creation absent a God is no stronger than the explanation for all of creation premised on a God.

Sigh.

Proofs for God's existence based on the evidence of the existence of the universe itself absolutely do exist and they are absolutely, justifiably true under the rules of organic/classical logic. You don't know what you’re talking about. This fact has already been established on this thread by people who know what they're talking about.

These proofs are simply not proofs under the rules of science. That’s all, because science can only deal with direct evidence from which only empirical theories can be inferred.

Why do people keep inserting subjective opinions into the equation and confuse what is an objective and simple matter? You're coming onto this thread late in the game repeating things that have already been falsified.

Um, sorry, but the universe existing in no way suggests your gods or any other gods are responsible. Cutting and pasting meaningless terms such as "organic logic" makes you appear as be trying way, way to hard.

 

[Justin Davis]

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

Science says that it is wishful thinking. Humans have always looked up and wondered. That's not proof there is a god. That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.

I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists. Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists. Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware? So what? And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too. As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?

And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator. There might be one, but who knows?

Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind? He sure does. Does that mean god is real? Nope.

Science doesn't say anything. Science doesn't even do anything. We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical. sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham

Creation science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP! LOL.

More accurately, saying that science's object of investigation is limited to empirical materiality is not the same thing as saying that "creationism is wishful thinking." All these scientists are saying is that creationism is not science, but religion. Whether or not biblical creationism is ultimately true is an entirely different issue, one that is theological/philosophical not scientific.

These scientists are not saying what you said. It is not scientific to say that "creationism is wishful thinking," in other words, false. That would not be scientific statement, but theological or philosophical.

You are confusing creationism with creation science, and science doesn't say anything. We say what science is and what it is not. We do science, science doesn't do itself. And we say what science demonstrates.

You post something that proves what I'm telling you as if it told us something I'm not saying, then you tell me to shut up. Look here you little punk, I don't know where you come from, but where I come those are fighting words. I stand 6' 4" and weight in at over two-hundred pounds. Be glad you're behind a computer out there somewhere as I'd slap you like the little sissy you are and send you into orbit if you got up into my face like that in the real world. You are another hateful, lying, ill-mannered barbarian. Civilized humans don't tell others to shut up without a justifiable cause. You are the one saying something that is false, not me.

But one of the most amazing things on this thread is that Rawlings, whose posts are nothing more than the basic, objectively universal facts that we all agree on and have agreed on is told that he's being a know it all. What a load of crap that is. That would be assholes like QW doing that. Only the hypocrites on this thread are saying that about Rawlings because s his posts remind keep reminding what they have already conceded to be true when in other posts they try to pretend what they said before is now not true. Liars. Rawlings posts are superior to anything else on this thread, the plain ordinary facts of consciousness, not made up bullshit or subjective opinions babbled like that fraud QW. QW has done nothing but lie about Rawlings ideas while pretending to be the open-minded one. What a crock and that whiny nanny Foxfyre complains because Rawlings and I are sick of QW's lies and his phoniness as she pretends like she's not pushing her subjective opinions as if they were absolutes too. " They don't understand. They're misrepresenting me. Boo hoo." What a phony, saying subjective made up trash based on nothing objective as if it were absolute. No, I get you just fine Foxfyre, you're a phony pretending to be open-minded when in fact your a dogmatic ninny. I don't care that Rawlings says you're good people. Civilized people don’t do what QW has done to the reputation of others on this thread. Those who lie about what I say are going to get my boot up their ass and Rawlings had every right in the world to put his boot up that lying ass of QW., nanny girl. It’s not our fault you're too stupid or hypocritical, turning a blind eye on QW's disgraceful behavior, to see what kind of person QW is and what he has pulled on this thread about the truth of God and the truth about God that God has put into our minds.

 

[Justin Davis]

... That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.

That's one definition of God. It seems there are others.

What are they? I'll tell you what they are. They are variations that all come down to these two options. There are no other options. That's it.

? what two options?

Something has always existed or we came from nothing. Which is it? If something that has always existed, is it material or transcendent? Why are you struggling with this?

I'm not 'struggling'. I just wasn't sure what you were referring to in your post. As I said, I don't think the question of creation is the same as the question of the existence of gods. I think they are likely completely unrelated.

Well I think I agree with that. All I'm saying is that existence is the first principle. And the next question is how do we exist? That's all. The idea of creation, which presupposes a Creator, comes in after that as one of the options.