DeepSight:


You are funny:



How terribly odd. "People" refers to something that exists. To persons. It is beyond me how you can sleep well arguing that there can be people who do not exist.

And then to use ghost workers as an example of "people that do not exist" - especially in the context of the preceding contentions.

"Ghost-workers" are not people in any sense.



Life after the transition of a person from his physical body is a self evident fact to anyone conscious enough to even be aware of himself and his daily existence within this body.

However the question of life after death still is not even necessary here as in either event we are speaking of a person who existed on this material plane: even for the doubters who say that life ends at death: one may revert to the effect that even the physical remains continue in the material cycle of life - that would rest the more subtle meanings of the OP which elude you.

I believe the truth is that your words of anger stem from your recognition of how ludicrously out of place your "ghost workers" example was, when you first attempted to give examples of the existence of persons that could "not exist."

I am not responsible for your incomplete reasoning processes or the paucity of thought within your mind.

Don't waste time going back and forth with logicboy sir.

You have proved your point astutely to those who can read and comprehend english. Especially with this:

How terribly odd. "People" refers to something that exists. To persons. It is beyond me how you can sleep well arguing that there can be people who do not exist.

DeepSight:

@ OP: Does this build a thread of reasoning somewhere in what you are trying to say regarding the self existent nature of God?

PS - You rightly should not worry too much about the futilist AIO who starts nowhere and goes nowhere: as a matter of fact, he has propounded quite exactly what your OP says in the past, in simply different words.

Thank you very much deepsight.
God's self existence is only difficult to grasp by those who choose to be blockheads and refuse to apply themselves to logical reasoning.

To me, the fact of his self existent may not be completely understood, but it is the destiny of my logical thinking, and a fact of reality based on the nature of creation itself.

Kay17:


But the root of evils are not amongst the axioms of existence in the first place

They have nothing to do with the axioms of existence.

Evil and good are simply characters of action and thought.
Conscious beings of free agency will have a potential for evil, which must be dealt with.

Joshthefirst:


Don't waste time going back and forth with logicboy sir.

You have proved your point astutely to those who can read and comprehend english. Especially with this:






Thank you very much deepsight.
God's self existence is only difficult to grasp by those who choose to be blockheads and refuse to apply themselves to logical reasoning.

To me, the fact of his self existent may not be completely understood, but it is the destiny of my logical thinking, and a fact of reality based on the nature of creation itself.

How ironic.

Deepsight also finds you to be a blockhead, if you don't know. You and him are on similar paths but different destinations. He arrives at a God but a different God from yours.

Deepsight's God is eloquently crafted from the mysteries of science and the flowery literature of sophistry. While your own God is created from the sewage that is unrefined irrationality.



Wait.......I have started using big grammar like Deepsight!

It seems I need a good night sleep.

DeepSight:


This is rather odd.

Is it really possible for a person to "not exist"?

When one says that "a person can either exist or not exist" - this suggests that you may have persons that exist and persons that do not exist.

Is this not a very self evidently false thought construction?



For is there any such thing as a "person" that does "not exist"?

It is a flat out contradiction in terms therefore to say that "a person can either exist or not exist" - thus suggesting two alternate possible types of persons: those that exist and those that do not exist!

Evidently therefore, the correct thing to say would be - "Persons exist" - or - "a person exists" - period.

@ OP: Does this build a thread of reasoning somewhere in what you are trying to say regarding the self existent nature of God?

PS - You rightly should not worry too much about the futilist AIO who starts nowhere and goes nowhere: as a matter of fact, he has propounded quite exactly what your OP says in the past, in simply different words.

After posting such drivel, how do you sleep at night? What do you down hope to accomplish with this?

What are you even beginning to suggest? That negatives cannot make logical sense?

This being particularly ironic, considering it's your side that consistently asks us to prove a negative. But let's not even begin to get into that....

BTW, are you and Josh the same person oga?

Joshthefirst:
God permeates all in reality. Everything about infinite reality beyond universe conception is 'contained' in him, so your question is not feasible in the first place.

So in other words he can't..

k den.

wiegraf:


After posting such drivel, how do you sleep at night?

When barred from my alcohol, Lexotan helps.
Not on account of any drivel though.

What do you down hope to accomplish with this?

Since it escapes you, I will go straight to the point: the validity of the argument of self existence and the impossibility of nothingness. That's it.

What are you even beginning to suggest? That negatives cannot make logical sense?

I don't know where you got this from.

This being particularly ironic, considering it's your side that consistently asks us to prove a negative.

I have never asked anyone to prove a negative - except perhaps (arguably) in my old thread "Revisiting the Burden of Proof" - AND in that thread there were several tangents that I came from. I don't recall if you were involved in that discussion. Nonetheless my discourses on the existence of God have generally set about to prove it, rather than require it to be disproved. Having said that, there is indeed a question mark remaining about whether or not the burden of proof does not properly shift in the circumstances.

Here is the thread, for your ease of reference:

https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof

BTW, are you and Josh the same person oga?

No sorry. Not into such. One time several years ago I tried to crack a prank such as being a different person in order to mock some dear rather touchy Christians concerning the virgin birth, I got caught out instantly by my second post as I used the wrong device! Very annoying!

lepasharon:


So in other words he can't..

k den.

Did you in any way attempt to understand what I said?

JackBizzle:



How ironic.

Deepsight also finds you to be a blockhead, if you don't know. You and him are on similar paths but different destinations. He arrives at a God but a different God from yours.

Deepsight's God is eloquently crafted from the mysteries of science and the flowery literature of sophistry. While your own God is created from the sewage that is unrefined irrationality.



Wait.......I have started using big grammar like Deepsight!

It seems I need a good night sleep.

We all find others blockheads in certain areas. Some people are found to be blockheads in almost all areas. (You should know I'm talking about you).

I don't care what anyone's opinion of me is much, especially yours. (I like marsman shaa). I already know DS is deist, and I pray he becomes Christian too.

Maybe you need another false sabbatical from here and a new moniker. Be sure to announce yourself as loftily as you normally do.

KingEbukasBlog:

Who is this

Thehopelesslandlord, thats who 'it' is

LaClicKLaBenDin:



I'm not surprised at the comments of all these anti-God horsdes in here, who come in the guise of atheism.

They're some things I can't say to them; things like what Benny Hinn said above. These are stuff that are way above their limited, myopic, logical and failed human reasoning.

"The things of the spirit is foolishness to a carnal mind".

Very correct air. Its indeed not meat for their class.

winner01:
God is not a person.
Can you people ever wrap your heads around God being the Creator of all

How can you ever expect that of them my brother?

JackBizzle:



How ironic.

Deepsight also finds you to be a blockhead, if you don't know. You and him are on similar paths but different destinations. He arrives at a God but a different God from yours.

Deepsight's God is eloquently crafted from the mysteries of science and the flowery literature of sophistry. While your own God is created from the sewage that is unrefined irrationality.



Wait.......I have started using big grammar like Deepsight!

It seems I need a good night sleep.

The most illogical Logicboy. i tire how u fit dey think like small pikin like dis oo.

Joshthefirst:
We all find others blockheads in certain areas. Some people are found to be blockheads in almost all areas. (You should know I'm talking about you).

I don't care what anyone's opinion of me is much, especially yours. (I like marsman shaa). I already know DS is deist, and I pray he becomes Christian too.

Maybe you need another false sabbatical from here and a new moniker. Be sure to announce yourself as loftily as you normally do.

See someone that is talking about blockheads! A doctor that does not know what a feotus looks like! A doctor that does not believe in evolution.A doctor that believes in the power of prayer over that of medicine. A doctor that would allow a mother die from a dangerous pregnancy just to avoid abortion.


I pity your patients.

analice107:

The most illogical Logicboy. i tire how u fit dey think like small pikin like dis oo.

Every dull simpleton has come up with that joke- and they think its original. "illogical logicboy".



You must me be very smart.

Interesting thread, asides the slurs being flung back and forth. Let me jump in on the current debate - existence and non-existence.

In my opinion, it is possible for something or someone to exist or not exist. The question, however, is what parameters are used for judging said existence. I think too often, we juxtapose "life" and all it's related tenses with existence. Let me explain with an analogy.

Take Harry Potter for example. As far as we know, no human boy that wears round glasses, has a scar on his forehead and was prophesied to defeat the dark lord ever lived on This earth. So to the average mind, Harry Potter does not exist and has never existed.

However, the very mention of the name "Harry Potter" evokes thoughts of a magical boy on a mission to rescue the world from evil forces. If Harry Potter Does not exist, how come we can have such thoughts that not only put a story to "him" but also attaches a persona and even an appearance when we know that If something Does not exist in the true sense of the word, then we cannot even have the slightest idea of what that thing is or should be like?

So Does/did Harry Potter exist in the physical sense of human existence? No (unless there's something J.K Rowling is not telling us). However, the fact that the mention of his name evokes thoughts of a person with a story, a persona and even an appearance is a pointer to the fact that he Does exist - just not in the physical sense but in the fictional and ideological sense. The pointer here is that a physical presence is not the only parameter by which existence is measured. In fact, the first proof of some form of existence is an idea of what that existence entails. For instance, If someone walks up to me and asks if someone named Donald Hilary Bush Kennedy-Clinton exists, my answer would be a profound no, since I can't attach any memories or ideas to any such person, whether real or imaginary. However, If the person asking has created a fictional character that goes by such a name and has attached attributes of physicality and ideology to the character, then the character Does exist - even If only in the mind of the creator.

Joshthefirst:
They have nothing to do with the axioms of existence.

Evil and good are simply characters of action and thought.
Conscious beings of free agency will have a potential for evil, which must be dealt with.

Before we reach the level for free agency the potential for evil has to exist first. Without a potential there can be no evil. Now the axioms create the potential then the free agency activates it.

Ishilove:

Genie!

I remember!

JackBizzle:



Every dull simpleton has come up with that joke- and they think its original. "illogical logicboy".



You must me be very smart.

Its sad how you don't see how illogical you sound, really its sad. I will leave you to your schemes.

analice107:

Its sad how you don't see how illogical you sound, really its sad. I will leave you to your schemes.

The pot said something to the kettle, that conversation of theirs springs to mind.

JackBizzle:





Please, fellow atheists, pantheists, theists and agnostics- please answer these questions;

Do dead people exist?
Do ghost workers exist?


I'm tired of Deepsight insulting my intelligence with his word salad.


cc johnydon22, plaetton, hahn, lepasharon, kingebukasblog, weah96 et al.....

Ignore that dude. He never makes any sense

analice107:

Its sad how you don't see how illogical you sound, really its sad. I will leave you to your schemes.

So illogical that I manage to convince a lot of your fellow christian Nairalanders?

PastorAIO:


The pot said something to the kettle, that conversation of theirs springs to mind.

Pastor?

Wetin I do you? Why?

hahn:


Ignore that dude. He never makes any sense

Deepsight 3:16-

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was salad. For whosoever believeth in the salad and eateth of it shall have everlasting eloquence.

JackBizzle:


Pastor?

Wetin I do you? Why?

Abeg no vex. What I meant was along the lines of 'look who's talking'. Not that you and him are the same.

JackBizzle:



Deepsight 3:16-

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was salad. For whosoever believeth in the salad and eateth of it shall have everlasting eloquence.

That one na revised standard version.

My own King John's Revised version says: ..... 'whosoever believeth in the salad and eateth of it shall have everlasting flatulence'.

My own is from the original parchments believed to have been written by the hand of the apostle himself so favour it.

Joshthefirst:
God permeates all in reality. Everything about infinite reality beyond universe conception is 'contained' in him, so your question is not feasible in the first place.

its a simple Yes OR No question

stephendamsoho:


its a simple Yes OR No question

God is a container. Can a container create another container that has more capacity than him?

PastorAIO:


God is a container. Can a container create another container that has more capacity than him?

you're saying "he can't"

something he should've said too

so "No" simple, no need for complicated answers

RosaConsidine:
Interesting thread, asides the slurs being flung back and forth. Let me jump in on the current debate - existence and non-existence.

In my opinion, it is possible for something or someone to exist or not exist. The question, however, is what parameters are used for judging said existence. I think too often, we juxtapose "life" and all it's related tenses with existence. Let me explain with an analogy.

Take Harry Potter for example. As far as we know, no human boy that wears round glasses, has a scar on his forehead and was prophesied to defeat the dark lord ever lived on This earth. So to the average mind, Harry Potter does not exist and has never existed.

However, the very mention of the name "Harry Potter" evokes thoughts of a magical boy on a mission to rescue the world from evil forces. If Harry Potter Does not exist, how come we can have such thoughts that not only put a story to "him" but also attaches a persona and even an appearance when we know that If something Does not exist in the true sense of the word, then we cannot even have the slightest idea of what that thing is or should be like?

So Does/did Harry Potter exist in the physical sense of human existence? No (unless there's something J.K Rowling is not telling us). However, the fact that the mention of his name evokes thoughts of a person with a story, a persona and even an appearance is a pointer to the fact that he Does exist - just not in the physical sense but in the fictional and ideological sense. The pointer here is that a physical presence is not the only parameter by which existence is measured. In fact, the first proof of some form of existence is an idea of what that existence entails. For instance, If someone walks up to me and asks if someone named Donald Hilary Bush Kennedy-Clinton exists, my answer would be a profound no, since I can't attach any memories or ideas to any such person, whether real or imaginary. However, If the person asking has created a fictional character that goes by such a name and has attached attributes of physicality and ideology to the character, then the character Does exist - even If only in the mind of the creator.

Excellent simplification there.

JackBizzle:



Deepsight 3:16-

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was salad. For whosoever believeth in the salad and eateth of it shall have everlasting eloquence.

PastorAIO:

That one na revised standard version.
My own King John's Revised version says: ..... 'whosoever believeth in the salad and eateth of it shall have everlasting flatulence'.
My own is from the original parchments believed to have been written by the hand of the apostle himself so favour it.

Lol.

Good jokes, but your good humour scratches nothing off the substance at play.
I have seen it before, the "resort to comedy" approach to refuting substance.

No dice gents.

RosaConsidine:
Interesting thread, asides the slurs being flung back and forth. Let me jump in on the current debate - existence and non-existence.

In my opinion, it is possible for something or someone to exist or not exist. The question, however, is what parameters are used for judging said existence. I think too often, we juxtapose "life" and all it's related tenses with existence. Let me explain with an analogy.

Take Harry Potter for example. As far as we know, no human boy that wears round glasses, has a scar on his forehead and was prophesied to defeat the dark lord ever lived on This earth. So to the average mind, Harry Potter does not exist and has never existed.

However, the very mention of the name "Harry Potter" evokes thoughts of a magical boy on a mission to rescue the world from evil forces. If Harry Potter Does not exist, how come we can have such thoughts that not only put a story to "him" but also attaches a persona and even an appearance when we know that If something Does not exist in the true sense of the word, then we cannot even have the slightest idea of what that thing is or should be like?

So Does/did Harry Potter exist in the physical sense of human existence? No (unless there's something J.K Rowling is not telling us). However, the fact that the mention of his name evokes thoughts of a person with a story, a persona and even an appearance is a pointer to the fact that he Does exist - just not in the physical sense but in the fictional and ideological sense. The pointer here is that a physical presence is not the only parameter by which existence is measured. In fact, the first proof of some form of existence is an idea of what that existence entails. For instance, If someone walks up to me and asks if someone named Donald Hilary Bush Kennedy-Clinton exists, my answer would be a profound no, since I can't attach any memories or ideas to any such person, whether real or imaginary. However, If the person asking has created a fictional character that goes by such a name and has attached attributes of physicality and ideology to the character, then the character Does exist - even If only in the mind of the creator.

An atheist such as Plaetton (and many other atheists) would readily then agree that God exists - as a mental construct of the human mind.

The mere existence of any abstraction as a thought is not what is being discussed here.

stephendamsoho:


its a simple Yes OR No question

No it is not. Is there a greatness bigger than everything in reality?