Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Without God from whence sprouts a moral code? In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong? In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake? If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost? Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.

Both Jeremiah and Paul point out that God's law is written on every human heart. We also have a conscience. Not every atheist chooses lawlessness. Many follow their heart and conscience in this regard. As a student in a Catholic school, we were often told to look deep and find Christ in everyone. My grandfather may have been an atheist, and he himself may not have recognized Christ...but I could recognize Christ within him.

Similar to what someone else just said, being an atheist does not make one loving and intelligent--but it does not preclude it either.

Oh THAT is a wonderful observation. Thank you.

Where I would disagree, is only in the distinction of the heart, wherein lies the separation between the a-theist; which is to say the person who has no concern with or for the existence of the deity... and the dark soul of the ANTI-THEIST.

I agree that Christ in is ALL of us, including lowly anti-theist, but the heart of the anti-theist is cloaked behind the darkest recesses of evil. Such is a REJECTION of God and God's LAW. Because such is the usurpation of God, claiming that holy perch FOR THEMSELVES... and demanding that everyone else recognize them as such, and working non-stop to prevent anyone else from recognizing God beyond THEM!

 

[Boss]

God did not create "Evil"

God didn't have to create evil.

Evil exists in the absence of good.
Like darkness exists in the absence of light.
Like cold exists in the absence of heat.

 

[Justin Davis]

Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?

From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.

Without God from whence sprouts a moral code? In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong? In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake? If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost? Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.

You should be answering those questions on your own.


They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.

They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary. That's DS's point.

To any thinking person they were answered satisfactorily long ago.


Do you think morality started AFTER civilization?


Even Christians must admit that Jesus Christ died in a civilization.


It's a lazy argument and you should think more clearly if you hope to have a grown up discussion.

Why is that lazy? It's just a statement of fact. Atheism can't give anything but an arbitrary answer. Stating a simple axiom is lazy? That's not controversial or a slight. It's just true. If there's no God there's no absolute or standing basis for morality. That's self-evident. Why would I "think morality started AFTER civilization?"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

God did not create "Evil"

God didn't have to create evil.

Evil exists in the absence of good.
Like darkness exists in the absence of light.
Like cold exists in the absence of heat.

NAILED IT!

 

[G.T.]

who created absence

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

who created absence

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?

 

[Justin Davis]

Nah. You guys haven't refuted any of them. No one can. GT's final objection, the only one he had left, was refuted here as well. Look, no one escapes "The Seven Things." There have been some who failed to think them through and imagined faults that weren't there, but I have refuted them all. Better yet, the laws of human thought refute all comers.

you failed to refute a single one of my objections.


you skip it and then you and your boy toy go on an ad hom retreat.

you have not substantively refuted a single damn objection.

Presupper in 3 d.

Dip, duck dodge.

Paste:

In logic, you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.

The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:

1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'




Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have not been ruled out and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.




I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.

You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself. The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically. You're just being dishonest by changing the premise. The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.

YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.

As presumed you would.

I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again. You're not fooling anyone but the dummies. I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.

Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?

They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.

You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creatOR cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."




On the contrary smart people realize this.

You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.

I never said I could prove that and I don't have to prove that, so there. Straw man. Go talk to the dummies. You aren't fooling anyone but the dummies. We believe we exist, we believe the universe exists, we know that God might exist as the Creator and the other five things of the seven follow. End of story.

 

[G.T.]

who created absence

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.

Who created good?

Followed by, who controls its parameters?

 

[G.T.]

you failed to refute a single one of my objections.


you skip it and then you and your boy toy go on an ad hom retreat.

you have not substantively refuted a single damn objection.

Presupper in 3 d.

Dip, duck dodge.

Paste:

In logic, you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.

The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:

1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'




Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have not been ruled out and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.




I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.

You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself. The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically. You're just being dishonest by changing the premise. The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.

YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.

As presumed you would.

I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again. You're not fooling anyone but the dummies. I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.

Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?

They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.

You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creatOR cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."




On the contrary smart people realize this.

You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.

I never said I could prove that and I don't have to prove that, so there. Straw man. Go talk to the dummies. You aren't fooling anyone but the dummies. We believe we exist, we believe the universe exists, we know that God might exist as the Creator and the other five follow. End of story.

If it's not able to be proven, it can't be USED to prove something genius. Thus, you agree TAG fails. Awesome, MD is going to have your head you had better retract quickly.

Thanks for agreeing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Who created good? Followed by, who controls its parameters?

Nature (God). Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?

 

[G.T.]

who created absence

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.

Who created good?

Followed by, who controls its parameters?

Nature (God). Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

God did not create "Evil"

God didn't have to create evil.

Evil exists in the absence of good.
Like darkness exists in the absence of light.
Like cold exists in the absence of heat.

NAILED IT!

You got that right! Out of the park! Home run! My mother's apple pie! Good job, Boss!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself. The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically. You're just being dishonest by changing the premise. The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.

YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.

As presumed you would.

I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again. You're not fooling anyone but the dummies. I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.

Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?

They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.

You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creatOR cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."




On the contrary smart people realize this.

You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.

I never said I could prove that and I don't have to prove that, so there. Straw man. Go talk to the dummies. You aren't fooling anyone but the dummies. We believe we exist, we believe the universe exists, we know that God might exist as the Creator and the other five follow. End of story.

If it's not able to be proven, it can't be USED to prove something genius. Thus, you agree TAG fails. Awesome, MD is going to have your head you had better retract quickly.

Thanks for agreeing.

Still pretending not to understand, eh? Pathetic. Watch this:


Seelybobo writes:

Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​

Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.

Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and #7 by extension.
#5 reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as #7 merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

No one escapes "The Seven Things"!
____________________________________

There are several edits in the current version as the original had errors in it that I missed the first time. Sometimes I type too fast.

 

[G.T.]

we know that God might exist as the Creator .

Your mentor is going to have such a good time with this.

And for being such a little girl all of the time, Justin? So am I.

You know he "might" exist, yet claim tag "proves" he exists

bookmarked.

 

[G.T.]

YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.

As presumed you would.

I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again. You're not fooling anyone but the dummies. I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.

Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?

They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.

You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creatOR cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."




On the contrary smart people realize this.

You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.

I never said I could prove that and I don't have to prove that, so there. Straw man. Go talk to the dummies. You aren't fooling anyone but the dummies. We believe we exist, we believe the universe exists, we know that God might exist as the Creator and the other five follow. End of story.

If it's not able to be proven, it can't be USED to prove something genius. Thus, you agree TAG fails. Awesome, MD is going to have your head you had better retract quickly.

Thanks for agreeing.

Still pretending not to understand, eh? Pathetic. Watch this:


Seelybobo writes:

Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​

Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is use to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation.

Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he is no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and #7 by extension. #5 reads: science cannot verify or falsify God's existence. Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, since #7 merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

Stop flip flopping, justinMD


god "might" exist =/= "its an axiom that god created knowledge."

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again. You're not fooling anyone but the dummies. I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.

Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?

They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.

You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creatOR cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."




On the contrary smart people realize this.

You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.

I never said I could prove that and I don't have to prove that, so there. Straw man. Go talk to the dummies. You aren't fooling anyone but the dummies. We believe we exist, we believe the universe exists, we know that God might exist as the Creator and the other five follow. End of story.

If it's not able to be proven, it can't be USED to prove something genius. Thus, you agree TAG fails. Awesome, MD is going to have your head you had better retract quickly.

Thanks for agreeing.

Still pretending not to understand, eh? Pathetic. Watch this:


Seelybobo writes:

Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​

Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is use to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation.

Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he is no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and #7 by extension. #5 reads: science cannot verify or falsify God's existence. Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, since #7 merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

Stop flip flopping, justinMD


god "might" exist =/= "its an axiom that god created knowledge."

"... You will know them by their fruits..."

Now, where the recognition of God is at issue and the fruit bearer's only purpose is to deflect from the pursuit of the truth through the glomming onto what it perceives as a 'breech' in the opinions of two believers, so as to promote doubt... WHAT fruit would one say that such a person is bearing?

GIVE ME AN "E" ... .

 

[G.T.]

Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?

They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.

You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creatOR cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."




On the contrary smart people realize this.

You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.

I never said I could prove that and I don't have to prove that, so there. Straw man. Go talk to the dummies. You aren't fooling anyone but the dummies. We believe we exist, we believe the universe exists, we know that God might exist as the Creator and the other five follow. End of story.

If it's not able to be proven, it can't be USED to prove something genius. Thus, you agree TAG fails. Awesome, MD is going to have your head you had better retract quickly.

Thanks for agreeing.

Still pretending not to understand, eh? Pathetic. Watch this:


Seelybobo writes:

Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​

Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is use to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation.

Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he is no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and #7 by extension. #5 reads: science cannot verify or falsify God's existence. Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, since #7 merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

Stop flip flopping, justinMD


god "might" exist =/= "its an axiom that god created knowledge."

"... You will know them by their fruits..."

Now, where the recognition of God is at issue and the fruit bearer's only purpose is to deflect from the pursuit of the truth through the glomming onto what it perceives as a 'breech' in the opinions of two believers, so as to promote doubt... WHAT fruit would one say that such a person is bearing?

GIVE ME AN "E" ... .

If what you're trying to say is that I'm evil, grow a set of balls and say it.

I'm not afraid of the labels you toss out there, 'cuz I already know that you're an ass hole and so your opinion I hold down right around where I hold Oprah's, or Al Sharpton's - - - - people/big mouths who don't usually know what the fuck they're talking about.

Say it loud and proud!

GT is evil!!!!!

It brings you joy to disparage. It is the mark of an ass hole. Besides smelling really really bad.

 

[Justin Davis]

Still pretending not to understand, eh? Pathetic. Watch this:


Seelybobo writes:

Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​

Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.

Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he is no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and #7 by extension. #5 reads: "science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as #7 merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

No one escapes "The Seven Things"!
____________________________________

There are several edits in the current version as the original had errors in it that I missed the first time. Sometimes I type too fast.

____________________________________
There are several edits in the current version as the original had errors in it that I missed the first time. Sometimes I type too fast.

I'm glad you fixed that because it's too important, but G.T. is just going to keep playing the dummy.

 

[Boss]

who created absence

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.

Who created good?

Followed by, who controls its parameters?

Nature (God). Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

 

[G.T.]

who created absence

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.

Who created good?

Followed by, who controls its parameters?

Nature (God). Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.