Lord Babs: who is this one? This arena is strictly for adults, please. Return to your sunday school. Oya! Afira!

Atleast i'm way better than that shallow twisted mind of yours.
Dumb A$$!!!

joe4christ:

Atleast i'm way better than that shallow twisted mind of yours.
Dumb A$$!!!

o.k. I heard you. You can now return to your sunday school. . .

wiegraf: Oops, never mind. It was a joke.. But if the turtle were falling, and we were moving along with it, so long as speed were constant we would not be able to to tell the diffrence. If we were under it and it were pushing (accelerating actually), the effect would be indistinguishable from that of gravity (gr= general relativity), or something like that. So we could still be on top of (or under) a giant turtle moving through space. Who would have thunk!

now i've got to believe u're referring 2 d Hindu stuff. You know the drift, don't u? Based on your assumption, it'll still lead to an infinite regress. . .
Ques: what is the turtle resting on?
Ans: turtle.
Ques: what is the turtle resting on?
Ans: turtle
on and on and on ad infinitum. Unless you'll want to prove that some 'unexplainable' gravity force is aiding the last of the turtles. But then you'll still be faced with questions like: why does the same gravity not work for the elephant or the earth itself. And these you'll have to prove substantively, lest the agnosticists(especially) strangle uuu.

plaetton:

We can use use deductive and inductive reasoning to arrive at any pre-determined conclusions that we wish to.

Deep Sight:
No we cannot.
. . .
This does not mean that if we had applied the proper logic consistently and correctly, we would not have arrived at the truth.

One can also “logically and philosophically” discard the notion of a “oneness of infinity”. It is sufficient to do this simply by showing the origin. I begin thus;

1) First of all, the argument for the oneness of infinity is not clean. It is "dirty". ¹
2) It is said to have always existed but this is not true. It did come from somewhere as I shall irrefutably show.
3) When someone makes ridiculous claims, such a person is said to be talking bullsh[i]i[/i]t.
4) Since Deep Sight is not a bull ², it is enough to say he is talking sh[i]i[/i]t !
5) Now, [i]s[/i]hit is not immutable and therefore cannot be said to be self existent.
6) In fact, the basic law of cause and effect tells us that sh[i]i[/i]t is caused.
7) It is caused primarily by a need to get rid of waste products, usually from consumption. ³
8 ) “Deep Sight” has consumed a lot of philosophical and religious material. ⁴
9) Now if you revert to point number 4 above, the keen student of philosophy would have objected to the point. Human beings do not “talk” sh[i]i[/i]t. This may present a conundrum to the philosophically challenged but there is a resolution at hand.
10) We know that sh[i]i[/i]t exists, and therefore it must have an origin. Remember that it is not immutable.
11) We know where sh[i]i[/i]t originates from.
12) It is “Deep Sight” ‘s sh[i]i[/i]t.
13) We thus arrive at the irresistible logical and irrefutable philosophical conclusion that the oneness of infinity originated from the south end of “Deep Sight” ‘s alimentary canal.
14) “Deep Sight” on the other hand maintains that the oneness of infinity “aint [i]s[/i]hit” which only invalidates his stance. ⁵
15) Gbam ! Gboga!! Gbaga!!! ⁶







Footnotes:
-----------
¹ Dirty in this sense is not your everyday meaning. Rather it takes on a deeper and profound meaning that only keen students of philosophy can comprehend.
² Except perhaps to certain people.
³ Such as the oneness of infinity.
⁴ As he admits

Deep Sight:
I have spent the better part of my life since I was 12 years or so reflecting on them to the point of distraction. The same thirst took me through a labyrinth of religions and philosophies, . . .

⁵ This is a very fine point which only the logically adept can grasp.
⁶ These indicate the flawlessness of an argument. Only the exceptionally dense try to argue after these three words. The appropriate thing to do is bow the head reverentially and continuously mutter to yourself “ I am not worthy”.

Lord Babs: now i've got to believe u're referring 2 d Hindu stuff. You know the drift, don't u? Based on your assumption, it'll still lead to an infinite regress. . .
Ques: what is the turtle resting on?
Ans: turtle.
Ques: what is the turtle resting on?
Ans: turtle
on and on and on ad infinitum. Unless you'll want to prove that some 'unexplainable' gravity force is aiding the last of the turtles. But then you'll still be faced with questions like: why does the same gravity not work for the elephant or the earth itself. And these you'll have to prove substantively, lest the agnosticists(especially) strangle uuu.

During one of his lectures or something a woman told stephen hawking he was talking rubbish, as the turtles were "all the way down" (he may have been just goofing around though, ppl can't be that stup.. Oh wait). As for the relative falling I'll figure it out the day I finally get what gr is on about (seems to include warping time as well). Or I just ask some of the ppl on this forum to make something up. I believe there are quite a few experts among these strange creatures dubbed 'religious' at dreaming stuff up

jayriginal:



One can also “logically and philosophically” discard the notion of a “oneness of infinity”. It is sufficient to do this simply by showing the origin. I begin thus;

1) First of all, the argument for the oneness of infinity is not clean. It is "dirty". ¹
2) It is said to have always existed but this is not true. It did come from somewhere as I shall irrefutably show.
3) When someone makes ridiculous claims, such a person is said to be talking bullsh[i]i[/i]t.
4) Since Deep Sight is not a bull ², it is enough to say he is talking sh[i]i[/i]t !
5) Now, [i]s[/i]hit is not immutable and therefore cannot be said to be self existent.
6) In fact, the basic law of cause and effect tells us that sh[i]i[/i]t is caused.
7) It is caused primarily by a need to get rid of waste products, usually from consumption. ³
8 ) “Deep Sight” has consumed a lot of philosophical and religious material. ⁴
9) Now if you revert to point number 4 above, the keen student of philosophy would have objected to the point. Human beings do not “talk” sh[i]i[/i]t. This may present a conundrum to the philosophically challenged but there is a resolution at hand.
10) We know that sh[i]i[/i]t exists, and therefore it must have an origin. Remember that it is not immutable.
11) We know where sh[i]i[/i]t originates from.
12) It is “Deep Sight” ‘s sh[i]i[/i]t.
13) We thus arrive at the irresistible logical and irrefutable philosophical conclusion that the oneness of infinity originated from the south end of “Deep Sight” ‘s alimentary canal.
14) “Deep Sight” on the other hand maintains that the oneness of infinity “aint [i]s[/i]hit” which only invalidates his stance. ⁵
15) Gbam ! Gboga!! Gbaga!!! ⁶







Footnotes:
-----------
¹ Dirty in this sense is not your everyday meaning. Rather it takes on a deeper and profound meaning that only keen students of philosophy can comprehend.
² Except perhaps to certain people.
³ Such as the oneness of infinity.
⁴ As he admits

⁵ This is a very fine point which only the logically adept can grasp.
⁶ These indicate the flawlessness of an argument. Only the exceptionally dense try to argue after these three words. The appropriate thing to do is bow the head reverentially and continuously mutter to yourself “ I am not worthy”.

You'd better be wary of ending up with the obsessive bitterness that some posters on this forum, such as Viaro, ended up having against me. These are open debates: getting all sensitive, obsessive, personal and bitter will do you no good.

Funny post though.

plaetton:

Correction: The universe is not mutable. The universe is made of matter. We all know from primary school that matter cannot be destroyed or created. It can only change form.

Mutability does not refer to the capacity of a thing to be destroyed or created, it refers to the fact that it is changeable. As such, the bolded shows that indeed both matter and the universe are manifestly mutable.

Like I posted on a previous thread, the big b.ang was probably just an INFLECTION POINT in transition from pure energy to physical matter. It was not the beginning of existence of matter.

This is a fair statement and I find no disagreement with it. We should wonder what caused such an inflection though.

Deep Sight:

You'd better be wary of ending up with the obsessive bitterness that some posters on this forum, such as Viaro, ended up having against me. These are open debates: getting all sensitive, obsessive, personal and bitter will do you no good.

Funny post though.

Noted.

Lord Babs:
The first fallacy you pandered to is that of Slippery slope, by disembarking from the progression of my arguments, tagging it 'gibberish'. I forgive your ignorance. The second fallacy you're guilty of is called 'petitio principii'(begging the question), by engaging in a circular argument, when you used what requires proof itself to prove your argument.

Hahaha. Friend, you do provide comic relief.

I can't but tell you that the foundation of your whole argument is faulty.

No sir, you rather come across as a nursery school kid attempting Further Maths.

Using the phantom called self-existence to prove the status quo, is like recoursing to the bible to prove the existential puzzles.

What is this? At least write proper English.

You don't create an imagined phenomenon and call it a supportive determiner of real events; it is fallacious and fraudulent. It's like saying, all certain humans will die..,and later say that the parents of those humans cannot die: are the parents not humans? Undoubtedly, we all know that this presumed self-existent entity is also a part and under the governing rules of existentiality. So, why do you now prematurely and illogically obviated this force from the rule of causality.

What I did was to show you that the very maxim you started with actually proves the existence of God: for it shows clearly that for anything at all to exist, a permanent something must exist.

Hence, i'll appeal to you to stop derailing the thread with your potpourri of fallacies.

I insist on carrying on.

Stop behaving you know what you don't know at all.

Why should I stop when in fact I do know it all?

Answer the numerous logical questions from my previous posts!

They have been answered already but being the bad student that you are you refused to take notes. You must repeat the class. Here goes -

Does God have an origin?

No: God IS ORIGIN.

Does he have a creator?

Let us not ascribe a s.ex to God. Going forward use the term "IT" if you must, just so that we are neutral. No, God does not have a creator.

Does he have a beginning?

No, God does not have a beginning.

If the answers to these questions is NO!then you'll be unlearned to continue saying this your God is SOMETHING.

Yes, God is something.

Because, whatever you call 'something' must have a beginning, an origin, and a cause! Prove me wrong dude!

No: there are things that do not have such. I have given examples of self-existent things already. Philosophically these are necessary, as opposed to contingent things. We ASKED you to read this up. You have failed to do so.

Tell me, does eternity exist? Is it something or nothing? Does it have a beginning or a cause?

Settle down dude.

Deep Sight: Tell me, does eternity exist? Is it something or nothing? Does it have a beginning or a cause?

In fact, i want every contributor to this thread to attempt this question.

Kay 17:

Change is believed by many wise men *smile* as the only permanent object. Understanding that the First Cause gives off a potential the Universe and its constituent matter, then one must acknowledge that the First Cause itself changed/transformed/altered state to form the Universe. The universe is not a separate entity but should be at least a part of the First Cause.

Therefore concluding that due to the alterable state of Matter and energy, both can't be the first cause is faulty. Also, to suggest the immaterial gives off the material, knowing both entities radically diFferent and considering that both don't share the same substance is to seek for a Miracle.

But it could not logically be otherwise.

jayriginal:

What a bore.


There is no basis for saying "god did not begin" other than a need to escape from clumsy dogma.

There is: the very maxim under discussion demonstrates that fact.

Deep Sight:

Hahaha. Friend, you do provide comic relief.



No sir, you rather come across as nursery school kid attempting Further Maths.



What is this? At least write proper English.



What I did was to show you that the very maxim you started with actually proves the existence of God: for it shows clearly that for anything at all to exist, a permanent something must exist.



I insist on carrying on.



Why should I stop when in fact I do know it all?



They have been answered already but being the bad student that you are you refused to take notes. You must repeat the class. Here goes -



No: God IS ORIGIN.



Let us not ascribe a s.ex to God. Going forward use the term "IT" if you must, just so that we are neutral. No, God does not have a creator.



No, God does not have a beginning.



Yes, God is something.



No: there are things that do not have such. I have examples of self-existent things already. Philosophically these are necessary, as opposed to contingent things. We ASKED you to read this up. You have failed to do so.

Tell me, does eternity exist? Is it something or nothing? Does it have a beginning or a cause?

Settle down dude.

Eternity is a concept, an idea, a convenient way to help our mind define unacounted time.
Likewise, god is a concept, an notion, a convenient way to help our mind account for unaccounted phenomena in unaccounted time.

Lord Babs: I admit i'm not a fan of mathematics, but at least i'm not as vapid to not give a simple mathematical illustration of my argument. Here is it:
1. Let 0 stands for 'nothing'.
2. Let 1 stands for 'something'.
3. Hence, 0 + 0 = 0(i.e.nothing and nothing = nothing).
0 - 0 = 0(i.e. nothing without nothing is still nothing)...Ex nihilo nihil fit.
4. Hence, 1 + 1 = 2(i.e. something and something is two somethings).
1 - 1 = 0(something without something is nothing).
5. Hence, if God(something) exists without something else, it is NO-THING!

Everything is correct here except No. 5, which is hopelessly incoherent. How do you apply 5 to 4? Why is a subtraction deployed there in your representational mathematics? Such a subtraction is only properly applied in representational mathematics when something exists, and then ceases to exist i.e it is REMOVED from the equation.

This repeated confusion is exactly why I say you are grappling with concepts you have not even settled down to calmly reflect on, let alone study.

Deep Sight:

There is: the very maxim under discussion demonstrates that fact.

Nope. No basis, except for convenience.


EDIT:
What is eternity ? What is infinity ?

plaetton:

Eternity is a concept, an idea, a convenient way to help our mind define unacounted time.

Are you saying eternity does not exist, save in our minds?

jayriginal:

Nope. No basis, except for convenience.

What then would reside on the left side of the zero equation in order to render reality existent?

Perhaps, you simply don't like the word "God". . . you can substitute it with another word of your choosing. . . BUT something permanent is THERE.

jayriginal:

EDIT:
What is eternity ? What is infinity ?

I posed the question to you, my student, and you are throwing it back at me? Ha.

Ok, here is my own answer: Eternity is the infinite continuum into which events are interpolated.

Now attempt my question on whether eternity exists or not; and whether it is caused or not.

Thank you, ever kind, noble, gracious and majestic sir: Lord of the seven seas, Imperial Regent for Africa, and most exalted Prince of Persia.

wiegraf:

If you require something to be imutable, we can go with infinite energy. If there was only infinite energy as a starting point, you could actually say there was: nothing.

Everything would be the same, every point you pass in which ever direction would be infinite energy, practically nothing (or the exact same properties everywhere). Matter and antimatter(both energy) are constantly colliding, infinitely, and cancelling each other out. Every once in a while though some matter escapes (even antimatter escapes, but for unknown reasons this is much, much rarer, so much so antimatter is considered the most expensive substance on this rock), and this makes up the known universe. (if you think this doesn't make sense look up the incompleteness theorem, math can be tricky). The big ban.g to most is one of these collisions going ballistic, for reasons we are not too clear of, and creating unimaginable amounts of matter in a few seconds. The main point is the infinite energy is still there, just canceling itself out, being "nothing".

I have bolded some text above in red and in blue.

I hope, that without having to speak further, you can read your own words and see clearly how disastrously and irretrievably the red words contradict the blue.

I'm not going to make any assertions though, as this is not fact. I'm not even sure if I understand the concepts and details, this is just my personal opinions and stuff. However, objectively, I cannot see in any way how you can justify creation as "reeking of something personal". You'll have to explain how, why, else it comes across to me as you believing in what you want to believe, perhaps because it makes you comfortable.

Well so long as we are speaking of the EXISTENCE of God, for now it is not relevant to ponder the question of its being personal or impersonal. Let's address its existence as a starter.

@Deepsight nice one there, very interesting refutation you got going on here!

Let me ask the atheists where did the material universe we live in come from? Nothing? . . . whatever you end up attributing it to (the source for the raw that produced the universe), the begging question remains where did it come from? While it is very easy to open your mouths and conclude your disbelief, it remains difficult to prove it, as Deepsight has shown, on very flimsy evidence and/or logic. Now if you say nothing, then we all fall into the same boat, and as such essentially nullify our very existence, off course nobody is going to disappear because as result, . . .

@Lord Babs, Area Boy, wiegraf, plaetton, Jayriginal etc...

You guys are like jokers who start off on a path. Two miles down the way, they discover that it leads to damnation. However, rather than simply turn back, leave the path and seek another, they start running around in circles on the same path in the futile hope that somehow, miraculously, the destination will change.

First of all, Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit is NOT an argument. It is a statement that could form part of an argument but on it's own it doesn't constitute an argument. Your arguments so far can be broken down thus:

1. Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit: Nothing Comes from Nothing.
2. At some point, absolutely nothing existed.
3. Therefore, I exist.

(I use "absolutely nothing" because I don't want to get into this silly argument about "something nothing". There is no variance or relativity to nothing. Nothing CAN ONLY BE absolutely nothing!!! But for the sake of clarity...)

Now, we do not know the truth values of statements 1 and 2 and it would be very difficult to ascertain them. Statement 1 is in fact impossible to prove through experiment as you would first have to create nothing itself before deriving something out of it, which would be ridiculous as the experimenter would be a something which created the something. Only statement 3 is easily tested and I must, grudgingly, accept that you all exist.

Once you break it down like this, the depth of silliness in your arguments becomes very obvious to the discerning mind. But I have my doubts about your abilities so I will repeat myself again:

caezar:
Put in other words, you cannot make a coherent argument on the first premise that nothing existed in the beginning, and the second premise that nothing comes out of nothing. If nothing comes out of nothing and we start with nothing, then you cannot possibly make the argument as you could not possibly exist to make an argument as nothing would ever exist. But if you accept that nothing comes from nothing but something always existed then you could exist as offshoot of that something that always existed.

If statements 1 and 2 above are true (this is an assumption you are ALL working on), then NOTHING WOULD EVER EXIST!!!
You would thereby be invalidating statement 3, the only empirical truth we have.

You must therefore discard one or both of your preceding statements (i.e. statements 1 and/or 2).
However, I must warn you that this does not make your task easier (I am assuming your task is to invalidate any self-existent being because they all look too much like God). Let me demonstrate.

If you choose to discard the first premise "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit", then you are faced with the prospect of proposing that something can come from nothing. An impossibility to demonstrate or even observe. Furthermore, even if you assume it to be true, it doesn't invalidate the possibility of self-existent beings.

If on the other hand you choose to discard the second premise: "At some point, absolutely nothing existed" then you would finally arrive at the argument that I and Deep Sight have been making:

1. Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit: Nothing Comes from Nothing.
2. Something always existed.
3. Therefore, you exist as an eventual offshoot of the something in statement 2.

If you are so bothered by this notion of a self-existent being, as proposed by statement 2, then you need to propose another resolution to your above dilemma.

I can think of one more such resolution. You could throw cause and effect completely out the window . Of course, in that reality, there would be no laws of physics. In that reality, when you press the submit button in your reply post, nothing happens!!! I wish .


What is it about You God, that the atheist would deny his logic in order to deny Your existence?

Deep Sight:

But it could not logically be otherwise.

Matter must be shown to be an effect of God and also share in totality the character of God. Otherwise, the entire premise of God being immaterial and unchangeable, has to be reconsidered.

On your eternity question: can the Beginning have a Cause? Yes, because it is a reference and qualification of Time. We are compelled by Reason to seek for a Cause of time or else face an absurdity of infinity.

vedaxcool: @Deepsight nice one there, very interesting refutation you got going on here!

Let me ask the atheists where did the material universe we live in come from? Nothing? . . . whatever you end up attributing it to (the source for the raw that produced the universe), the begging question remains where did it come from? While it is very easy to open your mouths and conclude your disbelief, it remains difficult to prove it, as Deepsight has shown, on very flimsy evidence and/or logic. Now if you say nothing, then we all fall into the same boat, and as such essentially nullify our very existence, off course nobody is going to disappear because as result, . . .

The issues in this debate have more to do with the notion of self-existent god supposedly creating something where nothing supposedly existed.

If something always has to come from something else, then god is something and has to ome from something else. Simple logic.Abi?
But if god did not come from something else, as Deepsight wants us to accept, then god is nothing, as only nothing can coem from nothing.

But rather than eating humble pie and confess that he does not know, Deepsight has found an escape hatch in conjuring a conenient fantasy that god is exempt from his own logic beacause god is self-existent or self -created, whatever the hell that means.

Can you spot the contradiction?

caezar: @Lord Babs, Area Boy, wiegraf, plaetton, Jayriginal etc...

You guys are like jokers who start off on a path. Two miles down the way, they discover that it leads to damnation. However, rather than simply turn back, leave the path and seek another, they start running around in circles on the same path in the futile hope that somehow, miraculously, the destination will change.

First of all, Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit is NOT an argument. It is a statement that could form part of an argument but on it's own it doesn't constitute an argument. Your arguments so far can be broken down thus:

1. Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit: Nothing Comes from Nothing.
2. At some point, absolutely nothing existed.
3. Therefore, I exist.

(I use "absolutely nothing" because I don't want to get into this silly argument about "something nothing". There is no variance or relativity to nothing. Nothing CAN ONLY BE absolutely nothing!!! But for the sake of clarity...)

Now, we do not know the truth values of statements 1 and 2 and it would be very difficult to ascertain them. Statement 1 is in fact impossible to prove through experiment as you would first have to create nothing itself before deriving something out of it, which would be ridiculous as the experimenter would be a something which created the something. Only statement 3 is easily tested and I must, grudgingly, accept that you all exist.

Once you break it down like this, the depth of silliness in your arguments becomes very obvious to the discerning mind. But I have my doubts about your abilities so I will repeat myself again:


If statements 1 and 2 above are true (this is an assumption you are ALL working on), then NOTHING WOULD EVER EXIST!!!
You would thereby be invalidating statement 3, the only empirical truth we have.

You must therefore discard one or both of your preceding statements (i.e. statements 1 and/or 2).
However, I must warn you that this does not make your task easier (I am assuming your task is to invalidate any self-existent being because they all look too much like God). Let me demonstrate.

If you choose to discard the first premise "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit", then you are faced with the prospect of proposing that something can come from nothing. An impossibility to demonstrate or even observe. Furthermore, even if you assume it to be true, it doesn't invalidate the possibility of self-existent beings.

If on the other hand you choose to discard the second premise: "At some point, absolutely nothing existed" then you would finally arrive at the argument that I and Deep Sight have been making:

1. Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit: Nothing Comes from Nothing.
2. Something always existed.
3. Therefore, you exist as an eventual offshoot of the something in statement 2.

If you are so bothered by this notion of a self-existent being, as proposed by statement 2, then you need to propose another resolution to your above dilemma.

I can think of one more such resolution. You could throw cause and effect completely out the window . Of course, in that reality, there would be no laws of physics. In that reality, when you press the submit button in your reply post, nothing happens!!! I wish .


What is it about you God, that the atheist would deny his logic in order to deny Your existence?

The issues are very simple here, no matter how you guys try to confuse it.

No athiest that I know has gone out to prove that your god(which ever version) did not create the universe, since we dont believe in the existenece of god. We actually laugh at you guys that claim that god did.

You say everything that exist must have a creator and therefore god exists and created the universe. Fine.
Now , on the question of god's origin, you say "no no no", he does not have an origin.
You then make up a fancy word called self-existence.
Now, why can't your so-called self-existence notion be equally applied to all matter?

I guess god gets preferential treatment because he is god?

That's what is absoloutely hilarious,absurd and fraudulant.

That is the issue I want all thiests posting on this thread to addess.

I believe Self Existent things exist because it's their nature to be inherently self existent. Self existent things are necessary and cannot but exist because they are immaterial and thus immutable. They are also intangible and therefore they are uncreated. We KNOW that immaterial things are immutable and immutable things are self existent.

Examples of "Self Existent" entities.

YHWH
Infinite Lines
Infintie Numbers
Infinite Space
Infinite Eternity
Infinite Ideas
Infinite Thoughts
Infinite Minds
Infinite Infinity.


I have solved the problem of infinite regress.

plaetton:

The issues in this debate have more to do with the notion of self-existent god supposedly creating something where nothing supposedly existed.

If something always has to come from something else, then god is something and has to ome from something else. Simple logic.Abi?
But if god did not come from something else, as Deepsight wants us to accept, then god is nothing, as only nothing can coem from nothing.

But rather than eating humble pie and confess that he does not know, Deepsight has found an escape hatch in conjuring a conenient fantasy that god is exempt from his own logic beacause god is self-existent or self -created, whatever the hell that means.

Can you spot the contradiction?

No contradiction. This is a straw man.
The difference between your argument and mine is that mine accepts that for Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit to make ANY sense in our observable universe, something must have always existed. Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit does not say that Nothing EVER existed which, by the way, is the nonsensical premise on which you are basing all your refutations.

plaetton:

The issues are very simple here, no matter how you guys try to confuse it.

No athiest that I know has gone out to prove that your god(which ever version) did not create the universe, since we dont believe in the existenece of god. We actually laugh at you guys that claim that god did.

You say everything that exist must have a creator and therefore god exists and created the universe. Fine.
Now , on the question of god's origin, you say "no no no", he does not have an origin.
You then make up a fancy word called self-existence.
Now, why can't your so-called self-existence notion be equally applied to all matter?

I guess god gets preferential treatment because he is god?

That's what is absoloutely hilarious,absurd and fraudulant.

That is the issue I want all thiests posting on this thread to addess.

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit IS applied to self-existent things but because they exist, it doesn't matter. You exist mate! You exist! Have enough faith in yourself if not in a self-existent being! And because you exist, you can apply the rule of Ex Nihilo Nil Fit to nothing and determine that nothing would ever spring from that nothing. But since you exist, something always existed! Think!!! Don't get so obsessed with trying to invalidate God that you stop thinking at all!

plaetton:

The issues in this debate have more to do with the notion of self-existent god supposedly creating something where nothing supposedly existed.

If something always has to come from something else, then god is something and has to ome from something else. Simple logic.Abi?
But if god did not come from something else, as Deepsight wants us to accept, then god is nothing, as only nothing can coem from nothing.

But rather than eating humble pie and confess that he does not know, Deepsight has found an escape hatch in conjuring a conenient fantasy that god is exempt from his own logic beacause god is self-existent or self -created, whatever the hell that means.

Can you spot the contradiction?

No, the debate is flawed because we all end up in the same position we started, The God theory makes absolute sense because we could say exceptions, Something does not always have to come from something, that is the view point of people of religion, that God did existence is cannot be construed by the general theory of something gives out something, the God existence makes more sense that the universe emanating from nothing and then strangely organise itself by sheer what?

I think everyone needs to read up on this "Self Existence" issue. lol

http://www.google.com/search?q=self+existence&rls=com.microsoft%3A*&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&oq=self+existence&gs_l=serp.3..0l3j0i30l7.10703.11094.0.11406.3.3.0.0.0.0.187.515.0j3.3.0...0.0...1c.CTvvB7Pq9ro

caezar:

No contradiction. This is a straw man.
The difference between your argument and mine is that mine accepts that for Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit to make ANY sense in our observable universe, something must have always existed. Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit does not say that Nothing EVER existed which, by the way, is the nonsensical premise on which you are basing all your refutations.

I have never made any claims of nothing ever existed, rather I am just follwing the strings of logic that we all having been meandering through. I am even confuse by your line of argument. If something must have always existed, then what exactly is that thing, matter or anti-matter?

Deepsight wants us to accept that it is something other than matter, which he calls god.
So is god anti-matter?
Hmmmmmm

caezar:

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit IS applied to self-existent things but because they exist, it doesn't matter. You exist mate! You exist! Have enough faith in yourself if not in a self-existent being! And because you exist, you can apply the rule of Ex Nihilo Nil Fit to nothing and determine that nothing would ever spring from that nothing. But since you exist, something always existed! Think!!! Don't get so obsessed with trying to invalidate God that you stop thinking at all!

I have no problem with existence.

Matter is self-existent and did not need a creator. period

The problem and the issue here, let me reiterate, is that Deepsight and perhaps you and thiests alike, make the bold claim that self existence is the exlcusive perogative of the imaginary god. T
hat is the absurdity.

vedaxcool:
No, the debate is flawed because we all end up in the same position we started, The God theory makes absolute sense because we could say exceptions, Something does not always have to come from something, that is the view point of people of religion, that God did existence is cannot be construed by the general theory of something gives out something, the God existence makes more sense that the universe emanating from nothing and then strangely organise itself by sheer what?

What's the difference between saying the universe( singularity) sprung up from nothing and saying "god" is "self existent"?

vedaxcool:
the God existence makes more sense that the universe emanating from nothing and then strangely organise itself by sheer what?

how did god emanate from nothing and the strangely acquired the power to organise himself/itelf/herself and then "organize" a universe.

The universe is not as "organized" or "ordered" like you guys like to think...........acccording to astrophysicists and astronomers