What's wrong with the doctrine of God's self-exisence?...

[solja247]

You can give a fictional character any properties you like, can't you?

Superman could leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Unfortunately, those sought of answers dont help people who read more than the God Dellusion.

Well I got it from the Christian theologian R.C. Sproul, who argues that God needs nothing to sustain him, because he has within himself the power of being. He therefore was not created.

This is indeed a problem, if God is the ultimate being does He need to be created?

---

If he needs nothing to sustain him why is he so desperate for our worship and adulteration?

Some theists think God is some emotional chick who says, 'Love me! Please love me!'
I see God as being a gentle king for some reason does want to have a relationship with us. The idea that God needs our worship is pagan and silly.

1. If you attribute these qualities to God, then yes he may exist. However, you first have to prove that there is a presence before explaining how this presence works.
This argument is presupposing God exists and then explains how he created itself. But it's a deus ex machina, for example you can say that in Harry Potter their wands can cast spells because they have magical elements in them. So in a world where wands have magical properties, casting spells seems plausible. However you first have prove these wands have magical properties. In the same way, you have to prove God exists and his different properties before explaining how they work. In short, this argument is useless before you prove God exists.

No one can say that God exists or doesnt, it all speculation. However, what was the cause for the universe? I also find the ontological argument is rather convincing, that God is the greatest thought or idea that can be imagined.

2. This argument is nonsense. See, to have the power of being, he must be. To be, he must have the power of being. This idea of God being eternal and not created is so abstract by nature that people stop looking into it after two or three layers of reasoning, but when you get down to it, you always have one aspect of their reasoning that is assuming an unexplainable ability.

So your second refutation is, 'I dont understand it, therefore God doesnt exist.'?