Does God Exist?

[Dontaskme]

If the perceived object is separate from the mind that is perceiving it then the object in question is mind independent

surreptitious57...The problem I have is with the word 'separation', which you seem happy to use. If there's just 'everything' then where does the idea of 'separation' fit in, and where is that idea coming from if not from the 'everything' that is already 'everything'...so where's the separation, what is causing the split?

Where does the idea of 'separation' exist? ...

So although everything is experienced by the mind that does not mean that everything has to originate within the mind

Experiences are of the mind yes, because there has to be an awareness of the experience. The problem with saying that things / obejcts have to have an origin aka the mind in your case...is assuming that it is possible that 'things' can exist in the first place.

When it's obvious that ''Objects/Things'' don't have a mind, so who knows, who makes the 'assumption' that objects can exist independant of an origin ?

We've already agreed the mind is a 'phantom construct', and not an o'bject'...and 'objects' do not have a 'mind' to know they exist...so do you see the dilemma of assuming that 'things' can exist in and of themselves ..which is what you seem to imply?

If the 'mind' doesn't exist, and 'objects' don't have a 'mind' to know they exist, ....who knows this, who is the knower?

.

[surreptitious57]

Everything is connected directly or indirectly to everything else. So the notion of separation is a false one but we still use it since it is useful to us
We find it easier to compartmentalise because that is how we have evolved to think. However it is also important to understand that all of reality exists upon a single spectrum. And so there is no compartmentalisation in it only in our models of it. However models of reality and actual reality are not the same since one is merely an approximation of the other. The distinction is necessary so as to avoid confusing the map with the terrain

[Dontaskme]

Everything is connected directly or indirectly to everything else. So the notion of separation is a false one but we still use it since it is useful to us
We find it easier to compartmentalise because that is how we have evolved to think. However it is also important to understand that all of reality exists upon a single spectrum. And so there is no compartmentalisation in it only in our models of it. However models of reality and actual reality are not the same since one is merely an approximation of the other. The distinction is necessary so as to avoid confusing the map with the terrain

I agree.

But what I don't agree with.. is your assertion that objects can be mind independant...that idea implies the mind is an object, which it is not.

Subject and Object are indivisably ONE

.

[A_Seagull]

William Lane Craig says there are good reasons for thinking that He does.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Does_God_Exist

Not only is God not the best explanation for anything real, it is not an explanation at all.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

God does NOT exist because that is not possible.

WLC starts with a series of assumptions, "reasoning" them to a "true" conclusion.

From:

"1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence."

and

"2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being."

to

"3. The universe is a contingent thing."

and then magically and with a big leap of faith to "god exists".

This is a manipulation called the Fallacy of Presumption.

Copilot AI: What you're describing is a classic example of a fallacy of presumption, specifically a mix of:

Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

• The argument assumes the truth of a key premise (e.g., “The universe is contingent”) without proving it, and then uses that assumption to build the conclusion.
• It’s circular reasoning disguised as deduction.

Loaded Assumption / Unwarranted Presumption

• The claim “Every contingent thing has an explanation” is presented as a universal truth, but it’s not demonstrated.
• The leap from “contingent” to “transcendent personal being” is speculative and not logically necessary.

False Cause or Non Sequitur

• The conclusion “God exists” doesn’t logically follow from the premises unless you already accept the speculative definitions and assumptions.
• It’s a non sequitur: the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises in a logically valid way.

In philosophical terms, this kind of reasoning is often used in cosmological arguments, but critics rightly point out that it’s built on unproven metaphysical assumptions. It’s not just flawed—it’s rhetorically manipulative, because it pretends to be deductive while smuggling in belief-based premises.

If you’re dissecting this in a book or article, you might call it:

• “Philosophical sleight of hand”
• “Metaphysical presumption”
• “Deductive theater built on speculative scaffolding”

This manipulations starts with the first claim of "contingent things". WLC assumes that things are contingent but does not prove it. In reality, things are NOT contingent but are necessary because Something can not not exist. Absolute Nothing does not exist because it can't. That means that things or the universe exist without conditions, it is eternal and simultane.

The basic Essence of philosophy is Truth. Everybody who ignores it and manipulates arguments to his selfish benefit, in this case, for defending the religious delusion, is not a true philosopher.

Religion, apologetic, and WLC work is based on a simple lie that god exists. His 8 arguments for the existence of god are all just manipulations and logical fallacies. The universe is eternal and simultane: god does not exist, and that is easily provable.

In my new book series, “It’s Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History”, I present four pieces of evidence, scientific, logical, ontological, and experiential, that god does NOT exist because that is not possible.

Read more about this breakthrough and game-changing book series on my webpage https://god-doesntexist.com/

P.S. I presented three objective pieces of evidence (the fourth one is subjective but fully supports and reinforces the first three) to multiple AIs - ChatGPT and Claude, and both acknowledged that they are logically irrefutable.

[Age]

God does NOT exist because that is not possible.

WLC starts with a series of assumptions, "reasoning" them to a "true" conclusion.

If any of the assumptions are False, in the first place, then 'reasoning them' will never guarantee a 'True' conclusion.

If, however, one starts with and uses True premises, only, and then 'reasons validly', then is when True conclusions are guaranteed.

From:

"1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence."

and

"2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being."

to

"3. The universe is a contingent thing."

and then magically and with a big leap of faith to "god exists".

This is a manipulation called the Fallacy of Presumption.

Copilot AI: What you're describing is a classic example of a fallacy of presumption, specifically a mix of:

Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

• The argument assumes the truth of a key premise (e.g., “The universe is contingent”) without proving it, and then uses that assumption to build the conclusion.
• It’s circular reasoning disguised as deduction.

Loaded Assumption / Unwarranted Presumption

• The claim “Every contingent thing has an explanation” is presented as a universal truth, but it’s not demonstrated.
• The leap from “contingent” to “transcendent personal being” is speculative and not logically necessary.

False Cause or Non Sequitur

• The conclusion “God exists” doesn’t logically follow from the premises unless you already accept the speculative definitions and assumptions.
• It’s a non sequitur: the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises in a logically valid way.

In philosophical terms, this kind of reasoning is often used in cosmological arguments, but critics rightly point out that it’s built on unproven metaphysical assumptions. It’s not just flawed—it’s rhetorically manipulative, because it pretends to be deductive while smuggling in belief-based premises.

If you’re dissecting this in a book or article, you might call it:

• “Philosophical sleight of hand”
• “Metaphysical presumption”
• “Deductive theater built on speculative scaffolding”

This manipulations starts with the first claim of "contingent things". WLC assumes that things are contingent but does not prove it. In reality, things are NOT contingent but are necessary because Something can not not exist. Absolute Nothing does not exist because it can't. That means that things or the universe exist without conditions, it is eternal and simultane.

The basic Essence of philosophy is Truth. Everybody who ignores it and manipulates arguments to his selfish benefit, in this case, for defending the religious delusion, is not a true philosopher.

Religion, apologetic, and WLC work is based on a simple lie that god exists. His 8 arguments for the existence of god are all just manipulations and logical fallacies. The universe is eternal and simultane: god does not exist, and that is easily provable.

In my new book series, “It’s Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History”, I present four pieces of evidence, scientific, logical, ontological, and experiential, that god does NOT exist because that is not possible.

Read more about this breakthrough and game-changing book series on my webpage https://god-doesntexist.com/

P.S. I presented three objective pieces of evidence (the fourth one is subjective but fully supports and reinforces the first three) to multiple AIs - ChatGPT and Claude, and both acknowledged that they are logically irrefutable.

[Phil8659]

William Lane Craig says there are good reasons for thinking that He does.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Does_God_Exist

What may be predicated of anything is wholly determined by the definition of that thing.

So, how do you define God? Give it your best shot.

If God is the creator of the Universe, as Plato noted, then it means that God is the universal definition of a thing, i.e., God is an intelligible. Since, as an information processor, and that all information is processed using binary recursion, what is written in the Bible is factually true, I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and he End, which is a metaphor for the correlatives in the definition of a thing, Which by the way is repeated in John 1.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god. ,

a metaphor for the definitive sentence again, which examples binary recursion, The first word, or correlative, is the container for the names of a relative and its correlatives.
Tom is a cat.

So, if you can read metaphor, and can reason better than a vegetable, the only power a mind has is the ability to process information, the only power it can comprehend over all the universe, is information, or literacy, i.e., the ability to use speech, means that everything one comprehends, its only power it can know, is that which is spoken. i.e., The Universe was spoken,

Psychology is commensurate with the Principles of Language which are functionally resident in a mind as a Grammar Matrix, Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry.

So, if you claim that God is some particular perceptible thing, you are simply an illiterate fool. And if you claim there is not God, that which creates everything, then you commit a self-referential fallacy of also claiming, you cannot speak.