@kay from the quote below, it seems you are accepting the first premise which on can deduce from your question above, therefore are you saying you have taken a position?

snthesis:

A. "if a creature was not self created it implies it was made, it has a Maker , a God.
B. 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.

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.

so tell us who created egg.

hisblud: @kay from the quote below, it seems you are accepting the first premise which on can deduce from your question above, therefore are you saying you have taken a position?

I think both flow together. A God is a self caused being thus lord over it, whereas any thing that has an external influence is not God.

However God is an absurdity as long as self caused are.

Logic Mind:

so tell us who created egg.

God

Kay 17:

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

His God "I AM THAT I AM"

Kay 17:

I think both flow together. A God is a self caused being thus lord over it, whereas any thing that has an external influence is not God.

However God is an absurdity as long as self caused are.

which brings us to the futility of Atheism - since we agree that Humans have an external influence in its creation- it implies Atheism has no Basis.
the real debate should never have being if a God existed rather it should have being on Who is our creator, our God.

snthesis:
His God "I AM THAT I AM"

POWERFUL STATEMENT sh@uting out loud!

snthesis:
His God "I AM THAT I AM"

That's absurd! Who isn't who is he?!

snthesis:
which brings us to the futility of Atheism - since we agree that Humans have an external influence in its creation- it implies Atheism has no Basis.
the real debate should never have being if a God existed rather it should have being on Who is our creator, our God.

No, it shows a futility of the God "Creator" argument. An effect cannot preexist its cause.

Kay 17:


No, it shows a futility of the God "Creator" argument. An effect cannot preexist its cause.

that brings us to the second line in the premise

B. now if a creature is self Created, then it is a God unto itself"

Kay 17:

That's absurd! Who isn't who is he?!

didnt expect u to understand

An effect cannot preexist its cause.

Thus, the creation cannot preexist the creator.

And if man is created, man's creator i.e. man's God, preexisted man.

If the Universe is created or caused to exist, then its creator i.e, its God or its cause of existence, preexisted it.

Thus the argument is not about the existence of God; that has been implicitly conceded by the statement I quoted in the beginning of this post.

Rather, the argument is about the nature of God!

Enigma:

Thus, the creation cannot preexist the creator.

And if man is created, man's creator i.e. man's God, preexisted man.

If the Universe is created or caused to exist, then its creator i.e, its God or its cause of existence, preexisted it.

Thus the argument is not about the existence of God; that has been implicitly conceded by the statement I quoted in the beginning of this post.

Rather, the argument is about the nature of God!

I totally agree with you on the aforementioned point.

However in this premise: God is God by virtue of self cause/ self creation, which you would disagree to!

Kay 17:

Enigma:

An effect cannot preexist its cause.

Thus, the creation cannot preexist the creator.

And if man is created, man's creator i.e. man's God, preexisted man.

If the Universe is created or caused to exist, then its creator i.e, its God or its cause of existence, preexisted it.

Thus the argument is not about the existence of God; that has been implicitly conceded by the statement I quoted in the beginning of this post.

Rather, the argument is about the nature of God!

I totally agree with you on the aforementioned point.

However in this premise: God is God by virtue of self cause/ self creation, which you would disagree to!

If I understand you right, you are suggesting that I disagree with the notion that God caused Himself or created Himself ("Itself" if you like). If I've got it right, I would say not necessarily do I disagree with that --- though it could be expressed differently that God simply exists in and of Himself/Itself ----- hence God simply IS, hence I AM that I AM.

On another note, do you realise that you have indeed now almost expressly conceded the existence of "God" (except to work out His/Its nature)?

So, would you still call yourself an "atheist"?

Its dangerous to say all gods don't exist. I don't think supernatural gods exist. So still atheist.

Don't you think you and sthnesis have very different ideas on the subject God?? Because sthnesis insists God didn't always exist, and that he was caused at a particular time.

I'm that I'm is a natural concept. Unlike "Greater than the Greatest, Higher than the Highest" which is supernatural.

Kay 17: Its dangerous to say all gods don't exist. I don't think supernatural gods exist. So still atheist.

This is contradictory, my ol' good friend. I would say that by this, at best you are an agnostic - not quite an "atheist" (strictly speaking there is no such thing as an "atheist" anyway).

I have also pointed out before that I had noticed quite a number of Nairaland's self-proclaimed "atheists" subtly using style style to shift their positions to a form or other of agnosticism. I guess, we have done a good job of undermining the atheist positions afterall.

Kay 17: Don't you think you and sthnesis have very different ideas on the subject God?? Because sthnesis insists God didn't always exist, and that he was caused at a particular time.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't recall snthesis saying God has not always existed. Maybe he will clarify.

Kay 17: I'm that I'm is a natural concept. Unlike "Greater than the Greatest, Higher than the Highest" which is supernatural.

"I Am that I Am" is only one description. Even that matches your "Greater than the Greatest, Higher than the Highest" --- when you think about it carefully.

But then I also give you "The Beginning and The End"; "The First and The Last"; "The Alpha and The Omega".

Try also: "The One who IS, always WAS and IS still to come".

And try "The Almighty"

Yep, that indeed is your "Greater than the Greatest, Higher than the Highest".

Kay 17: Because sthnesis insists God didn't always exist, and that he was caused at a particular time.

abeg wen did i say that

unphilaz: 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.

Not a single contribution to the debate, not a single input, it is enough that someone makes a comment so that these gentlemen are offended by his insults: Atheist! Blasphemer! Satan! Heretic!
It must be hard to live devoid of analysis, logic, and also prey to irrational fanaticism.

Ptolomeus:

Not a single contribution to the debate, not a single input, it is enough that someone makes a comment so that these gentlemen are offended by his insults: Atheist! Blasphemer! Satan! Heretic!
It must be hard to live devoid of analysis, logic, and also prey to irrational fanaticism.

hmm why should i derail a sound topic as this, if by my being mute helps the OP maintain a flow of argument! And to you "great 1" you can take the OP's argument apart and let see,

Enigma:

This is contradictory, my ol' good friend. I would say that by this, at best you are an agnostic - not quite an "atheist" (strictly speaking there is no such thing as an "atheist" anyway).

I have also pointed out before that I had noticed quite a number of Nairaland's self-proclaimed "atheists" subtly using style style to shift their positions to a form or other of agnosticism. I guess, we have done a good job of undermining the atheist positions afterall.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't recall snthesis saying God has not always existed. Maybe he will clarify.

"I Am that I Am" is only one description. Even that matches your "Greater than the Greatest, Higher than the Highest" --- when you think about it carefully.

But then I also give you "The Beginning and The End"; "The First and The Last"; "The Alpha and The Omega".

Try also: "The One who IS, always WAS and IS still to come".

And try "The Almighty"

Yep, that indeed is your "Greater than the Greatest, Higher than the Highest".

If a man demonstrates to me that the Sun or a pen which he produces and mentions the natural benefits they give to him warrants their status as Gods and says they do exist; I can't deny that!

But I have always found the supernatural absurd which is what most religions are based on. Especially Abrahamic faiths.

"Greater than the Greatest, Higher than the highest" is more of a fallacy, because if there is a greatest, then nothing is greater than it! Just like the saying " immovable object is met with the irresistible force" but there would be no irresistible force with any immovable object around.

"I AM THAT I AM" every entity's identity rests on its character, thus its a universal trait.

Whether God had always existed, I wouldn't answer that yet, cos I would be derailing the thread. Just going to be relying on the OP's premise

unphilaz: hmm why should i derail a sound topic as this, if by my being mute helps the OP maintain a flow of argument! And to you "great 1" you can take the OP's argument apart and let see,

hmmm! and no one has

THE MENTALLY DERANGED MAN SAY IN HIS MIND THAT THERE IS NO GOD

There are Gods, but no universal God.

Kay 17: There are Gods, but no universal God.

i see , u aint an atheist anymore- nw thats one step forward

All depends on "which" god u refering to ,for there's the "real" "god" and then there's the "false" "god" now the "one" is self "creating" but the other has "been" "created". Now the "one" that's "been" "created" has ultimately "been" "created" by the "one" that's "still" "creating" for what the "one" that is "creating" has "created" has "created" the "one" that's "been" "created", for the "one" that's "still" "creating" "created" "us" and "we" "created" the "one" that's "been" "created" but yet we believe more in the "one" "we" created more than the "one" that "created" "us" and then some how disregard the "one" that "created" us for the "one" "we" "created" almost as if the "one" that's "still" "creating" should not have "created" us , for "what" has "it" "created" a "virus" on to "itself" , NO , "it" has, the "one" that "we" "created" don't blame the "creating" "GOD" "blame" "our" selfs "we" were "created" by the "creating" "GOD" with "choise" "we" went the "wrong" "way" .

hi folks

An earthly resurrection

refresher