"god exists" <Why is this a relevant argument?

[TruthWorthy]

I did not contradict myself, I illustrated the contradiction of the statement "god exists".
Are you able to reply in a way that shows you understand my perspective so I know you're not arguing for the fun of it?


Everything exists is a given by default otherwise we wouldn't be able to talk about it (even if an idea).
The proposition argues that "god exists" in reality, not an idea.
=>nonexistence = nothing
given the context of nonexistence as opposed to existence which is the argument about "god".
given that: nothing is an impossibility due to being a paradox (in the same context just mentioned), we have: existence = everything.
So the assertion of in the first "god., must also entail (exists).
=>"god (exists) exists"
double positives cancel each other out so it is a nonstatement or does it equate to: "god does not exist"?

[ib.me.ub]

I am not debating for the fun of it, but it is interesting.

Nothing is nonexistent so everything must exist.

This maybe true, but it does not seem to work in the opposite.

[TruthWorthy]

I wasn't sayin that was you ib, or even Ad, I figured there should be a limit to the amount of pages it takes to get past a single point of contension.

[Tiberius]

I did not contradict myself, I illustrated the contradiction of the statement "god exists".
Are you able to reply in a way that shows you understand my perspective so I know you're not arguing for the fun of it?

There is no contradiction in the statement "god exists", only a contradiction in your argument that there is a contradiction (and therefore revealing your argument as wrong).

Everything exists is a given by default otherwise we wouldn't be able to talk about it (even if an idea).

Say hello to the Loch Ness Monster the next time you see her.

FYI, ideas about things exist. The things that ideas concern don't have to. You are conflating the issue by suggesting that because we have an idea about something, it means it exists. This is wrong, and a formation of the Ontological argument (where people define things into existence). It has been shown to be wrong many times, as people can use it to define whatever they like into existence.

The proposition argues that "god exists" in reality, not an idea.
=>nonexistence = nothing
given the context of nonexistence as opposed to existence which is the argument about "god".
given that: nothing is an impossibility due to being a paradox (in the same context just mentioned), we have: existence = everything.
So the assertion of in the first "god., must also entail (exists).
=>"god (exists) exists"
double positives cancel each other out so it is a nonstatement or does it equate to: "god does not exist"?

Double positives do not cancel each other out. It is very simple:

God does (not) (not) exist => God does exist.
God (does) (does) exist => God does exist.

In mathematical terms:

-- = +
++ = +

Your phrase "God (exists) exists" simply becomes "God exists".

[ib.me.ub]

Fair enough...I say no more.

[Tiberius]

You are arguing for the fun of it! I knew it.
Allow me to prove your "logic" false here:
"You are not loving this argument" vs. "You are not, not loving this argument";
the first obviously is straight forward and correct.
then we run into trouble in the second with
firstly: You are not,
secondly: not loving this argument

Which logically becomes
You are loving this argument and therefore don't want it to end.

So you just violated the law of non-contradiction, by stating that:

"You are not loving this argument" was correct, but also that "You are loving this argument" was correct.

In essence, if X = "You are loving this argument", and X is true, ¬X cannot be true as well. Yet ¬X ("You are not loving this argument") is true according to you.

Ergo we have a contradiction: X = ¬X

I am loving this argument because (1) I'm correct, and (2) you stumbling around making false arguments and showing off your utter idiocy in logic is hilarious.

[TruthWorthy]

Ok, so if the statement "god exists" becomes "god (exists) exists" is the same as "god does does exist" = "god does exist" Shouldn't the original statement of "god exists" be classed as a nonstatement and be replaced with "god does exist"?!!
And then there would be further problems, yeah?

[Tiberius]

"God exists" is a short way of saying "God does exist", in the same way saying "Horses exist" is a short way of saying "Horses do exist".

Both ways of saying it are correct, and no, there are no further problems with it.

[TruthWorthy]

It was called a fkn joke which I deleted because I thought it was a bit petty.

---

Hmm, I think you're right.

[Tiberius]

I didn't notice you deleted it. I didn't find it petty though; I just laughed.