But you said "yes", you said: "Yes that's a contradiction"
Why are you saying "yes" if you aren't agreeing with my point - the very part you were quoting... - of you making a contradiction?
Okay fair enough... you didn't actually mean you agreed with my point that you were contradicting yourself....
So when you quoted my accusing you of contradicting yourself.... what contradiction are you accusing me of then... when you say that that's a contradiction in response?
How am I contradicting you by telling you that you are contradicting yourself?
You say my logic is flawed. But you are flawed in English if you really think that God can "be" something so that he "just is" without existing. He can't do or be anything if he doesn't exist... because there is no He to do or be!.
"God does not exist" means "There is no God". Existence is entirely relevant unless all you are arguing for is the concept of God, nothing but a metaphor, a placebo at best. Whether that be through inspiration or consolation or both....
In my final debate post... I didn't explicitly say the word clarification but that is exactly what I was asking for:
in response:
(bolding added now for emphasis).
What did you expect me to add to that? I was waiting for a response to if you agree... and if not, I was asking what you were talking about.... in other words - for clarification.
Actually this exactly what I wish to know now. "God is", means God exists. So when you say he 'just is' but existence is irrelevant. Then that means that he is completely irrelevant. Because he can't be relevant if his existence isn't... because him being and him existing are part of the same thing... because he can't 'be' or 'do' anything without existence.... if God does not exist, then there is no He... there is no He at all to be, or do, or whatever. God does not exist= There is no God. That's what it means. It's called English.
EvF
Why are you saying "yes" if you aren't agreeing with my point - the very part you were quoting... - of you making a contradiction?
Okay fair enough... you didn't actually mean you agreed with my point that you were contradicting yourself....
So when you quoted my accusing you of contradicting yourself.... what contradiction are you accusing me of then... when you say that that's a contradiction in response?
How am I contradicting you by telling you that you are contradicting yourself?
You say my logic is flawed. But you are flawed in English if you really think that God can "be" something so that he "just is" without existing. He can't do or be anything if he doesn't exist... because there is no He to do or be!.
"God does not exist" means "There is no God". Existence is entirely relevant unless all you are arguing for is the concept of God, nothing but a metaphor, a placebo at best. Whether that be through inspiration or consolation or both....
In my final debate post... I didn't explicitly say the word clarification but that is exactly what I was asking for:
fr0d0 Wrote:It's the definition you are getting wrong Evie. God is. This eradicates the need for existence.
in response:
EvF Wrote:That's a contradiction. "God is"=God exists. Otherwise what are you talking about when you say "God is"?
(bolding added now for emphasis).
What did you expect me to add to that? I was waiting for a response to if you agree... and if not, I was asking what you were talking about.... in other words - for clarification.
Actually this exactly what I wish to know now. "God is", means God exists. So when you say he 'just is' but existence is irrelevant. Then that means that he is completely irrelevant. Because he can't be relevant if his existence isn't... because him being and him existing are part of the same thing... because he can't 'be' or 'do' anything without existence.... if God does not exist, then there is no He... there is no He at all to be, or do, or whatever. God does not exist= There is no God. That's what it means. It's called English.
EvF
