(May 6, 2014 at 8:22 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(May 6, 2014 at 8:15 pm)Godslayer Wrote: Yeah, I got you mixed up with Godschild on who proposed God D when they shouldn't have. I still see no problem with my example of God B or how you think there is some problem, everyone else except the theists seem to be getting it here. Adding a God D violates the challenge by the way, bit obfuscating too.Now you're just being obtuse. The difference between B and C is that B is unnecessary and C doesn't exist. That's the difference.
Who got the Nobel Prize for discovering god again?...Obviously you have terrible criteria for verification or detection if you think any god has been verified let alone your particular one (and which sect is the right one anyway). But seriously, what do you have? personal experience? because you sure as hell don't have scientific verification.
Hey look, Chad came by to duck the challenge of differentiation of God B and God C again.
Good point, God A and God B would be eerily similar as B and C are.
I'm interested in seeing a conclusive argument for a necessary being, otherwise that term has no meaning.
Aquinas Wrote:Since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time.
Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number.
If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence. (Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation ex nihilo) for individual existent objects.
But, in fact, many objects exist in the universe.
Therefore, a Necessary Being (i.e., a Being of which it is impossible that it should not exist) exists.
The same objections to other ontological arguments apply, and necessity is an unsupported presupposition.
