RE: "god exists" <Why is this a relevant argument?
January 1, 2010 at 9:00 am
(This post was last modified: January 1, 2010 at 9:05 am by 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"?
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"?
Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
