Philosophy Now Forum

I'm in the middle (agnostic). This is a good article:

https://ithinkthereforeislam.wordpress. ... -answered/

PhilX

A brief look, and its the same old theistic argument bollocks.
And another dipshit spam thread of yours, created since you have little to contribute by way of "Is God's existence logical?" in all the threads i have started and argued re this very question.

Too meagre for your ego is it, to actually contribute in someone elses thread? Prefer to sound important and knowledgeable by continuing to spam you own..muppet.

attofishpi wrote:A brief look, and its the same old theistic argument bollocks.
And another dipshit spam thread of yours, created since you have little to contribute by way of "Is God's existence logical?" in all the threads i have started and argued re this very question.

Too meagre for your ego is it, to actually contribute in someone elses thread? Prefer to sound important and knowledgeable by continuing to spam you own..muppet.

A brief look implies you don't understand it, dipshit. Your assumptions are wrong and stupid, idiot. You're the one doing spam, fucktwit. Go find yourself another thread to play in, moron.

PhilX

He is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient when they are actually incompatible
He is supposed to exist outside of space and time even though there be no such thing
He is supposed to be metaphysical although his presence can apparently be detected
None of this makes any sense therefore the existence of God simply cannot be logical

Just because we have no scientific evidence for God’s existence, does not warrant the conclusion that God does not exist.

Agreed. It also does not warrant the conclusion that God does exist.

Since God never began to exist, the question of God having a cause does not even arise.

Now how does the writer conclude that? Since there is no evidence of God, there is no evidence that God never began to exist either. So an argument that starts with the assertion that " God never began to exist" is pointless.

our existence entails that God must be uncaused. God is a necessary being; for us to exist, God must be uncaused, why? Because if God has a cause or creator, and if that creator has another creator/cause, and if this causal chain goes on forever, we will not exist!

Why? Why cannot it just entail that existence itself is uncaused? If an uncaused God is necessary to create existence, then an uncaused existence simply removes one unnecessary link in the chain.

P1. Every twitter account that exists has a creator.
P2. FID exists.
From P1 and P2 follows P3
P3. FID has a creator.
From P3, follows P4
P4. The creator of FID exists.
From P1 and P4 follows P5
P5. The creator of FID has a creator.
P6. We do not know who created the creator of FID.
—————————————————–
P7. Therefore, the creator of FID does not exist!
—————————————————————–
C1: Therefore, It’s rational to believe that FID came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing!

Even though I am not a student of logic, I can see that the flaw here is that P1 is not an assumption. It is a fact. The universe has a creator is an assumption. FID has a creator is a fact.

if we do not know who designed the designer, then our ignorance of the aforementioned matter does not warrant the conclusion that there is no designer.

This is only true if the fact that there is a designer is established. In the case of the universe, the fact that a designer exists is not an established fact but an assumption.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Is God's existence logical?

Please define what you mean by 'God'.

attofishpi wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Is God's existence logical?

Please define what you mean by 'God'.

The creator and superhuman ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Is God's existence logical?

Please define what you mean by 'God'.

The creator and superhuman ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

PhilX

Oh. In that case the answer is a definite no.