The premise is simple- no long thing

"if a creature was not self created it implies it was made, it has a Maker , a God.
now if a creature is self Created, then it is a God unto itself"

This premise is open for test, and if it fails not, then we can conclude that God exists.

Where it is said that God is self-created?

Ptolomeus: Where it is said that God is self-created?

can u explain ur comment?

snthesis: The premise is simple- no long thing

"if a creature was not self created it implies it was made, it has a Maker , a God.
now if a creature is self Created, then it is a God unto itself"

This premise is open for test, and if it fails not, then we can conclude that God exists.

this is it, thanks sir for bringing it out. Having a 'general ask your questions' helps the atheist sound 'intelligent'. But wit this premise, no scripture for em to use to defy their Creator. Atheist, over to you.

maybe this Funny equation might help em get the drift!
A is creature, => means produce, therefore
Premise 1
God => A since (A not => A) OR
Premise 2
(A = god) since A => A

pretty quiet in here

Self cause is illogical.

snthesis:
can u explain ur comment?

here we go again. you are meant to answer the questions, not ask another one.

snthesis: pretty quiet in here

because you are not sincere. it is futile to reason with you.

Kay 17: Self cause is illogical.

what makes it illogical

Logic Mind:

here we go again. you are meant to answer the questions, not ask another one.

in other to answer the said question, i need it to be further explained- no be everyone get IQ of 1000000

Logic Mind:

because you are not sincere. it is futile to reason with you.

how have i been insincere?

@sthnesis

Saying an effect triggers a cause

snthesis: The premise is simple- no long thing

"if a creature was not self created it implies it was made, it has a Maker , a God.
now if a creature is self Created, then it is a God unto itself"

This premise is open for test, and if it fails not, then we can conclude that God exists.

So you're saying God was self created? What does this even mean? Do you understand what people mean when they use the word "create"?

5. snthesis(m): Quote Post
pretty quiet in here
maybe because we dont like arguing with broken records.

no more diversions!!!!
the thread is simple - to test a premise.
it is either you agree with the stated premise and provide a basis in support of your position
or
you disagree with the premise and provide a basis in support of your position


we are supposedly intelligent ppl, lets act it

i come from the perspective that god is not thus mooting your premises and assumptions.
if there is a god, where is he?
what is his raison d'etre?

Logic Mind: i come from the perspective that god is not thus mooting your premises and assumptions.
if there is a god, where is he?
what is his raison d'etre?

u come again, trying to hide ur lack of comprehension with big big grammar.

its either you agree with the premise or not, and state your reasons for your stance, how difficult is that

@snthesis it looks atheists here have grown cold feet in deciding which premise to take a stand on. Please are you debating this on any forum apart from nairaland. Post a link, i did like to follow you on it. And its better than that generalization. Thanks for making me think.

hisblud: @snthesis it looks atheists here have grown cold feet in deciding which premise to take a stand on. Please are you debating this on any forum apart from nairaland. Post a link, i did like to follow you on it. And its better than that generalization. Thanks for making me think.

The premise don't make any fucking sense. For if God is self caused that contradicts logic as a result can't exist!

Without a cause, there can't be an effect in the first place, thus where cometh effect despite an absent cause.

snthesis: The premise is simple- no long thing

"if a creature was not self created it implies it was made, it has a Maker , a God.
now if a creature is self Created, then it is a God unto itself"

This premise is open for test, and if it fails not, then we can conclude that God exists.

see here snthesis the result of your premise when applied logically.

chicken made egg so chicken is god of egg
egg made chicken so egg is god of chicken
chicken = god
egg = god
god = god
thus chicken does not exist
egg does not exist
all is god and god is all


try harder.

Now the truck has started to roll

snthesis: no more diversions!!!!
the thread is simple - to test a premise.
it is either you agree with the stated premise and provide a basis in support of your position
or
you disagree with the premise and provide a basis in support of your position


we are supposedly intelligent ppl, lets act it

Kay 17:

The premise don't make any fucking sense. For if God is self caused that contradicts logic as a result can't exist!

Without a cause, there can't be an effect in the first place, thus where cometh effect despite an absent cause.

Now kay, which of the premises snthesis stated does not make sense? A or B?
A.if a creature was not self created it implies it was made, it has a Maker , a God.
B. if a creature is self Created, then it is a God unto itself"

which?

hisblud: @snthesis it looks atheists here have grown cold feet in deciding which premise to take a stand on. Please are you debating this on any forum apart from nairaland. Post a link, i did like to follow you on it. And its better than that generalization. Thanks for making me think.

i am not debating it on any other forum, but feel free to post it in any forum of ur choice, and you could send me a link.

interesting!!!
no reasonable counter premise!!!
conclusion
Atheist know God exist they only choose not to acknowledge His existence

interesting!!!
no reasonable premise!!!
conclusion
Theists know God does not exist they only choose not to acknowledge His non-existence

Rewording the Premises.

The Universe either:

1.Always existed

or

2.Came into existence.

Since 1 is demonstrably false both scientifically ( Red shift , cosmic microwave bacground radiation) and philosophically ( impossibility of an infinite regress of events and the contingent nature of matter, then it follows that 2 is the only option.

If the Universe came into existence, then did it cause itself to come into existence or something caused it to come into existence?

It does not make sense to say the Universe caused itself to come into existence since it implies, that the Universe existed before it existed.For something to cause anything, it has to exist in the first place.It defies all logic.

You could say that a multiverse could have brought our universe into existence.but this does not solve our problem.We could as wel ask, did the Multiverse cause itself to exist?

Rewording the Premises.

The Egg either:

1.Always existed

or

2.Came into existence.

Since 1 is demonstrably false both scientifically ( eggs rot if unfetilized after a few weeks) and philosophically ( eggs always get laid by some animal, then it follows that 2 is the only option.

If the egg came into existence, then did it cause itself to come into existence or something caused it to come into existence?

It does not make sense to say the egg caused itself to come into existence since it implies, that the egg existed before it existed.For something to cause anything, it has to exist in the first place.It defies all logic.

You could say that a chicken could have brought our egg into existence.but this does not solve our problem.We could as wel ask, did the chicken cause itself to exist?

Logic Mind: Rewording the Premises.

The Egg either:

1.Always existed

or

2.Came into existence.

Since 1 is demonstrably false both scientifically ( eggs rot if unfetilized after a few weeks) and philosophically ( eggs always get laid by some animal, then it follows that 2 is the only option.

If the egg came into existence, then did it cause itself to come into existence or something caused it to come into existence?

It does not make sense to say the egg caused itself to come into existence since it implies, that the egg existed before it existed.For something to cause anything, it has to exist in the first place.It defies all logic.

You could say that a chicken could have brought our egg into existence.but this does not solve our problem.We could as wel ask, did the chicken cause itself to exist?

You do realise you are not doing yourself any favours and you are actually supporting the argument? the egg and the universe share the properties of finitude and contigency.

AlvinPlantinga:

You do realise you are not doing yourself any favours and you are actually supporting the argument? the egg and the universe share the properties of finitude and contigency.

yes, because the argument proves the inexistence of god.

Logic Mind:

yes, because the argument proves the inexistence of god.

actually ur argument proves the existence of God

Logic Mind: The Egg either:

1.Always existed

or

2.Came into existence.

Since 1 is demonstrably false both scientifically ( eggs rot if unfetilized after a few weeks) and philosophically ( eggs always get laid by some animal, then it follows that 2 is the only option.

If the egg came into existence, then did it cause itself to come into existence or something caused it to come into existence?

It does not make sense to say the egg caused itself to come into existence since it implies, that the egg existed before it existed.For something to cause anything, it has to exist in the first place.It defies all logic.

You could say that a chicken could have brought our egg into existence.but this does not solve our problem.We could as wel ask, did the chicken cause itself to exist?

AlvinPlantinga:

You do realise you are not doing yourself any favours and you are actually supporting the argument? the egg and the universe share the properties of finitude and contigency.

now that your premise has been broken down to sumtin we d "lay" ppl can relate with i.e egg and chicken.

it brings to fore that an external force is required to create an object- that external force is God to the created object. in simple terms if a creature/object/specie had no command of its coming into existence it implies succintly that the creature/object/specie has a Maker, a God.

snthesis:
now that your premise has been broken down to sumtin we d "lay" ppl can relate with i.e egg and chicken.

it brings to fore that an external force is required to create an object- that external force is God to the created object. in simple terms if a creature/object/specie had no command of its coming into existence it implies succintly that the creature/object/specie has a Maker, a God.

With your principle in mind, and on the object God, what external force created him?