An argument for the existence of god

[tor]

I invite Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab to present his argument for the existence of god. Go ahead mister!

[Rabb Allah]

I present you Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab with his argument for the existence of god. Go ahead mister!

It is not much of an argument, I can literally count the arguments for the existence of god I have had on 1 hand(maybe 2).

The premise is essentially the reverse of the religious ontological argument. God is the label applied to the most inconceivable entity possible. The existence of god is thus semantical and irrelevant at this conclusion because it only provides a label to an idea that cannot be described nor fathomed. In this argument it is possible to say that god does not exist since it's existence is not in any way present in our own. God is purely an idea or product of consciousness in the solipsistic way since without consciousness nothing can perceive god.
As to what you wish to call such an idea or entity is irrelevant as I said before since it is just a label applied to a thought which is a product of perception or the capabilities of our imaginations.

For any further clarification then ask me as I have not exactly concerned myself with constructing organized arguments for the existence of god. So please be aggressive with questions since this is not my usual topic of debate.

[Esquilax]

Sorry, we don't allow threads that call out other members here:

No Calling Out
Do not any create threads that call out a specific member. Calling out is whenever someone creates a thread that is aimed at a specific member in order to insult him, complain about him, and/or to put him in a awkward position such as by challenging his views or even by asking him questions. This type of attack is sometimes accompanied by a display of a member's username in the title of a thread as well, and that is not allowed either. Any such posts or titles will be edited by the staff as soon as they are brought to our attention.

Given this, I'll be closing the thread for now.

[Esquilax]

Alright, if you've gotten permission from the called-out user I'll re-open things, but other mods, if you feel differently, please swoop in and tell me I'm wrong.

[tor]

Just deleted this topic and let him make a new one.

[Rabb Allah]

Just deleted this topic and let him make a new one.

I think things are cool here. Lets just go ahead and continue, it is 12:49PM where I am at and frankly I have nothing else better to do. I need a good debate so lets continue.

As a great intellectual once said: "Are dem' fightin' words" ~ Yosemite Sam

[Alex K]

The premise is essentially the reverse of the religious ontological argument. God is the label applied to the most inconceivable entity possible. The existence of god is thus semantical and irrelevant at this conclusion because it only provides a label to an idea that cannot be described nor fathomed

I don't understand. I guess that proves it?

[Rabb Allah]

The premise is essentially the reverse of the religious ontological argument. God is the label applied to the most inconceivable entity possible. The existence of god is thus semantical and irrelevant at this conclusion because it only provides a label to an idea that cannot be described nor fathomed

I don't understand. I guess that proves it?

To be honest I did not realize halfway through that I was arguing over the nature of god. Sorry but the ontological argument is used in both cases by me as I do not take it to a religious level and apply a holy writ to it. Sort of stupid now that I think of it.