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

[solja247]

Of course not, i'm saying that you may create a logical reasoning for God's existence, but at some point in it there is an unprovable assumption in the reasoning, even if the rest of the reasoning is valid. To have the power to be he must already be, so this argument can explain how God can continue to exist, but now how he came to be, making it useless.

I disagree. Why did God need a beginning?

Yep, I think you'll find anyone that has read the old testament is very well grounded in saying that God is an emotional being. To cap it all the only time God authored the bible, according to tradition, the first things God says is don't call me names, worhsip me and no-one else. This is all at pains of you upsetting him; emotional yes!

Is that what God is like? or did the Israelites try to understand God and thus make Him emotive?

Yes they can. God/s does/do not exist. Both the ontological arguments and the cosmological arguments are shot full of holes and lead their proponents nowhere. No-one takes those arguments seriously anymore apart from those who are desparate to believe of course.

Antony Flew took the Cosmological and teleological argument seriously, one of the greatest philosophers in the 20th century.

That is a bad caricature of the point being made. God/s is/are abstract, abstract things only exist within conceptual frameworks (religion in this case). Remove that framework and a God/s no longer exist. No-one understands what a God/s is so it really hard to believe in it, and everyone who believes has a different perception apparently yours is a gentle king; which brings me back to the first point: have you read the OT?

God can still be philosophically tested.
I have read the OT before, its a beautiful book.

[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'.

[solja247]

Invisible Pink Unicorn is self-existent

Any philosophical reasons to believe so?

[Justtristo]

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.

Well I believe that the whole notion of a god as described in the bible is absurd. I struggle to explain sometimes how people invented this concept in the first place.

[Zen Badger]

Invisible Pink Unicorn is self-existent

Any philosophical reasons to believe so?

Just as many as for Yo-Yo.

[downbeatplumb]

Invisible Pink Unicorn is self-existent

Any philosophical reasons to believe so?

Well you need to read the holy texts and fully understand them.

http://www.pinkunicorn.net/

[solja247]

Nope. I didnt get any reasons from that site. Its all straw man. Thesits do not say what form God has anyways, He could be charlie the unicorn, although I doubt that.

[Edwardo Piet]

If we don't know what form God takes then how do we identify him? If he is unidentifiable there can be no evidence for him so yes, faith truly is blind.

[Zen Badger]

He could be charlie the unicorn, although I doubt that.

Everything would make a great deal more sense if he was

[dave4shmups]

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?

Yeah, you're right-it's not my burden of proof; I never thought of it that way. Oh, and as to what Christians think god is, as an ex-christian, I can tell you all that they think he is a spirit-where, I don't know!