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

[Welsh cake]

The doctrine of the self-existence of God is one that I was clinging to when I was a Christian, but I don't know how to refute it. I did join "Ask an Atheist" on Facebook, and asked there, but I haven't gotten a reply yet.

It's not your burden to go around disproving every single claim made about the supernatural otherwise you'd be indeterminate about all kinds of positions and constantly doubting yourself; disbelief is the default position when faced with extraordinary doctrines such as the Aseity of God.

You don't need refuters but confirmers to support an argument, its R.C. Sproul's burden of proof, not yours, that must be fulfilled. I could just as easily state the Invisible Pink Unicorn is self-existent, she has always been, we are not truly physical, but dreams in her never-ending subconscious. Like Sproul, if I can't provide evidence to support this, if I can't meet my obligation to reach a justifiable conclusion, what reason do you have to accept my premises as true?

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

Superman could leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Min I do believe dave4shmups is looking for honest answers not your ridiculous one liners that seem to never change.

When faced with outlandish claims, ridicule is more often than not, the most effective rebuttal, granted it's an appeal to common sense, but in the context of epistemology, if a claim is incoherent the burden of proof doesn't have to be invoked; if said positive ontological claim is ridiculously impractical, logically flawed, poorly defined and with no solid reasoning behind it, then its honestly not worth paying much attention to and simply dismissing the claim altogether as 'nonsensical'.