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

[solja247]

Of course not, i'm saying that you may create a logical reasoning for God's existence, but at some point in it there is an unprovable assumption in the reasoning, even if the rest of the reasoning is valid. To have the power to be he must already be, so this argument can explain how God can continue to exist, but now how he came to be, making it useless.

I disagree. Why did God need a beginning?

Yep, I think you'll find anyone that has read the old testament is very well grounded in saying that God is an emotional being. To cap it all the only time God authored the bible, according to tradition, the first things God says is don't call me names, worhsip me and no-one else. This is all at pains of you upsetting him; emotional yes!

Is that what God is like? or did the Israelites try to understand God and thus make Him emotive?

Yes they can. God/s does/do not exist. Both the ontological arguments and the cosmological arguments are shot full of holes and lead their proponents nowhere. No-one takes those arguments seriously anymore apart from those who are desparate to believe of course.

Antony Flew took the Cosmological and teleological argument seriously, one of the greatest philosophers in the 20th century.

That is a bad caricature of the point being made. God/s is/are abstract, abstract things only exist within conceptual frameworks (religion in this case). Remove that framework and a God/s no longer exist. No-one understands what a God/s is so it really hard to believe in it, and everyone who believes has a different perception apparently yours is a gentle king; which brings me back to the first point: have you read the OT?

God can still be philosophically tested.
I have read the OT before, its a beautiful book.