Arguments for The Existence of God
This topic is locked from further discussion.
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. Sleepwalk7
^Doesn't understand quantum physics.
[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"]1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. br0kenrabbit
^Doesn't understand quantum physics.
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman Joking aside, I doubt you understand quantum mechanics. Moreover, what does quantum mechanics have to do with the premise you quoted?
[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"][QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"]1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. Sleepwalk7
^Doesn't understand quantum physics.
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman Joking aside, I doubt you understand quantum mechanics. Moreover, what does quantum mechanics have to do with the premise you quoted?At the quantum level, spacetime is meaningless. A particle can be here and there, and everywhere at once, all at the same time. Things can happen before whatever makes that thing happen happens (think: ripples in the pond BEFORE you throw the rock in). Particles are all the time popping into existence from nothing. Impossible things can happen, like particles moving through a barrier that they can't classically pass through. Then you have the Einstein-Rosen bridge where distance is meaningless, then there's the whole entanglement phenomena, and so on.
The quantum world knows no necessity and routinely disproves its own order.
Â
This isn't a "flamebait troll topic." I provided a few good arguments for the existence of God and I'm interested in what the community here thinks of them.Here comes 500 serious replies to this obviously flamebait troll topic...
ad1x2
whose alt are you?
[QUOTE="ad1x2"]This isn't a "flamebait troll topic."Here comes 500 serious replies to this obviously flamebait troll topic...
Sleepwalk7
I provided a few good arguments for the existence of God and I'm interested in what the community here thinks of them.
Posting arguments of why you believe God exists in OT falls somewhere between posting why you think weed needs to be illegal forever and posting that Justin Bieber makes better music than every rock/metal band in existance.
Right off the bat we have a problem because you've made several claims here without any sources or evidence. I don't mean this in an insulting way or anything, but it seems like you've read or listened to some popular literature on quantum mechanics and now think you're an expert. 1. For example, you wrote, "At the quantum level, space time is meaningless." This is a statement which appears to be logically incoherent. What do you mean when you say on the quantum level, space time is meaningless? Because space time would include the quantum field, which is where quantum fluctuations take place. Prior to the existence of space time, there wasn't a reality described as quantum mechanics. 2. You wrote that in quantum mechanics, particles appear from nothing. But that's false. The "nothing" you're describing isn't a metaphysical nothing. It isn't literally nothing, in other words. The nothing you're describing is called the quantum field--which is very much the opposite of nothing. In fact, if it were really nothing, then there wouldn't be anyway to predict, observe, etc., (i.e. do science), which would mean quantum mechanics would be metaphysics. In any case, the quantum field--or the reality described as quantum mechanics--didn't always exist. This raises the question: How was it produced then?At the quantum level, spacetime is meaningless. A particle can be here and there, and everywhere at once, all at the same time. Things can happen before whatever makes that thing happen happens (think: ripples in the pond BEFORE you throw the rock in). Particles are all the time popping into existence from nothing. Impossible things can happen, like particles moving through a barrier that they can't classically pass through. Then you have the Einstein-Rosen bridge where distance is meaningless, then there's the whole entanglement phenomena, and so on.
The quantum world knows no necessity and routinely disproves its own order.
Â
br0kenrabbit
[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]Right off the bat we have a problem because you've made several claims here without any sources or evidence. I don't mean this in an insulting way or anything, but it seems like you've read or listened to some popular literature on quantum mechanics and now think you're an expert. 1. For example, you wrote, "At the quantum level, space time is meaningless." This is a statement which appears to be logically incoherent. What do you mean when you say on the quantum level, space time is meaningless? Because space time would include the quantum field, which is where quantum fluctuations take place. Prior to the existence of space time, there wasn't a reality described as quantum mechanics. 2. You wrote that in quantum mechanics, particles appear from nothing. But that's false. The "nothing" you're describing isn't a metaphysical nothing. It isn't literally nothing, in other words. The nothing you're describing is called the quantum field--which is very much the opposite of nothing. In fact, if it were really nothing, then there wouldn't be anyway to predict, observe, etc., (i.e. do science), which would mean quantum mechanics would be metaphysics. In any case, the quantum field--or the reality described as quantum mechanics--didn't always exist. This raises the question: How was it produced then? Oh boyAt the quantum level, spacetime is meaningless. A particle can be here and there, and everywhere at once, all at the same time. Things can happen before whatever makes that thing happen happens (think: ripples in the pond BEFORE you throw the rock in). Particles are all the time popping into existence from nothing. Impossible things can happen, like particles moving through a barrier that they can't classically pass through. Then you have the Einstein-Rosen bridge where distance is meaningless, then there's the whole entanglement phenomena, and so on.
The quantum world knows no necessity and routinely disproves its own order.
Â
Sleepwalk7
This isn't a "flamebait troll topic."[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"][QUOTE="ad1x2"]
Here comes 500 serious replies to this obviously flamebait troll topic...
ad1x2
I provided a few good arguments for the existence of God and I'm interested in what the community here thinks of them.
Posting arguments of why you believe God exists in OT falls somewhere between posting why you think weed needs to be illegal forever and posting that Justin Bieber makes better music than every rock/metal band in existance. Why is that?[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]Right off the bat we have a problem because you've made several claims here without any sources or evidence. I don't mean this in an insulting way or anything, but it seems like you've read or listened to some popular literature on quantum mechanics and now think you're an expert. 1. For example, you wrote, "At the quantum level, space time is meaningless." This is a statement which appears to be logically incoherent. What do you mean when you say on the quantum level, space time is meaningless? Because space time would include the quantum field, which is where quantum fluctuations take place. Prior to the existence of space time, there wasn't a reality described as quantum mechanics. 2. You wrote that in quantum mechanics, particles appear from nothing. But that's false. The "nothing" you're describing isn't a metaphysical nothing. It isn't literally nothing, in other words. The nothing you're describing is called the quantum field--which is very much the opposite of nothing. In fact, if it were really nothing, then there wouldn't be anyway to predict, observe, etc., (i.e. do science), which would mean quantum mechanics would be metaphysics. In any case, the quantum field--or the reality described as quantum mechanics--didn't always exist. This raises the question: How was it produced then?At the quantum level, spacetime is meaningless. A particle can be here and there, and everywhere at once, all at the same time. Things can happen before whatever makes that thing happen happens (think: ripples in the pond BEFORE you throw the rock in). Particles are all the time popping into existence from nothing. Impossible things can happen, like particles moving through a barrier that they can't classically pass through. Then you have the Einstein-Rosen bridge where distance is meaningless, then there's the whole entanglement phenomena, and so on.
The quantum world knows no necessity and routinely disproves its own order.
Â
Sleepwalk7
My first sentence is supported by the following sentences. I tell you spacetime is meaningless and then in the following sentences to describe how distance and time are both irrelevant.
And to answer your next question, one has to define something. And then you get into the whole 'empty space' debacle. There was a conference just a month or two ago debating whether there is a such thing as 'empty space' at all.
In String Theory terms, our membrane isn't isolated but the stuff attached to it is. There's a theory that both gravity and the quantum field are generated in extraspacial dimensions.
Outside our membrane spacetime isn't necessary. Indeed, it is theorized that if you could view our 3D+1 world from outside the membranes, it would all appear as a singularity (even time). It just appears to stretch endlessly in all directions because we're trapped inside it.
You suggest that everything that exists came from elsewhere, so where did God come from? If God is eternal, then that means he spent just as much time before creation existing as he will after the end of the world, so this begs the question: what took him so long to create, and what was he doing all that time?
Â
Right off the bat we have a problem because you've made several claims here without any sources or evidence. I don't mean this in an insulting way or anything, but it seems like you've read or listened to some popular literature on quantum mechanics and now think you're an expert. 1. For example, you wrote, "At the quantum level, space time is meaningless." This is a statement which appears to be logically incoherent. What do you mean when you say on the quantum level, space time is meaningless? Because space time would include the quantum field, which is where quantum fluctuations take place. Prior to the existence of space time, there wasn't a reality described as quantum mechanics. 2. You wrote that in quantum mechanics, particles appear from nothing. But that's false. The "nothing" you're describing isn't a metaphysical nothing. It isn't literally nothing, in other words. The nothing you're describing is called the quantum field--which is very much the opposite of nothing. In fact, if it were really nothing, then there wouldn't be anyway to predict, observe, etc., (i.e. do science), which would mean quantum mechanics would be metaphysics. In any case, the quantum field--or the reality described as quantum mechanics--didn't always exist. This raises the question: How was it produced then?[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]
At the quantum level, spacetime is meaningless. A particle can be here and there, and everywhere at once, all at the same time. Things can happen before whatever makes that thing happen happens (think: ripples in the pond BEFORE you throw the rock in). Particles are all the time popping into existence from nothing. Impossible things can happen, like particles moving through a barrier that they can't classically pass through. Then you have the Einstein-Rosen bridge where distance is meaningless, then there's the whole entanglement phenomena, and so on.
The quantum world knows no necessity and routinely disproves its own order.
Â
br0kenrabbit
My first sentence is supported by the following sentences. I tell you spacetime is meaningless and then go in the following sentences to describe how distane and time are both irrelevant.
And to answer your next question, one has to define something. And then you get into the whole 'empty space' debacle. There was a conference just a month or two ago debating whether there is a such thing as 'empty space' at all.
In String Theory terms, our membrane isn't isolated but the stuff attached to it is. There's a theory that both gravity and the quantum field are generated in extraspacial dimensions.
Outside our membrane spacetime isn't necessary. Indeed, it is theorized that if you could view our 3D+1 world from outside the membranes, it would all appear as a singularity (even time). It just appears to stretch endlessly in all directions because we're trapped inside it.
You suggest that everything that exists came from elsewhere, so where did God come from? If God is eternal, then that means he spent just as much time before creation existing as he will after the end of the world, so this begs the question: what took him so long to create, and what was he doing all that time?
Â
Just made a thread asking that question at the end an hour ago
I know this has got to be a troll thread, but I feel like playing anyway
1. Unproven statements, without any support for those qualities.
2. Sequentially speaking, those three points are true. But the second point requires that the universe had to have a cause, and no one knows if it did. Besides, if the universe had a first cause, what caused that first cause?
3. Morality is not universal, also, the argument fails because the first point is groundless. Morality is based on the society around it, and therefore is not objective.
Naw, I don't care anymore
Here's an argument for the existence of God. God took pity on this woman and gave her a reality show.
To me, it still seems like the statement "spacetime is meaningless" is hyperbolic nonsense that is being used as a way to sweep your lack of knowledge of the subject under the rug. And now you've done it again with, "distance and time are both irrelevant." In what way? You didn't even define "time" for us, so how are we supposed to follow what you're writing? For instance, I define time as merely events or changes. Using this definition, even quantum mechanics would be susceptible to time (because in quantum mechanics there are events or changes). Although stating that quantum mechanics is susceptible to time is a bit too strong. I don't mean to say that time is some sort of entity.My first sentence is supported by the following sentences. I tell you spacetime is meaningless and then in the following sentences to describe how distance and time are both irrelevant.
br0kenrabbit
Well, a vacuum isn't really nothing. That's a fact. And it's also not what we're talking about there. You claimed that in quantum mechanics particles can come out of nothing. That's incorrect, unless you're equivocating "nothing" with "quantum field" or "vacuum." When people hear or read, "Particles can come from nothing," they think nonbeing. And I don't know of any scientific literature that espouses such a view.And to answer your next question, one has to define something. And then you get into the whole 'empty space' debacle.
It's interesting to watch atheists posit extra-dimensions or other universes without any supporting empirical evidence, because man of these same atheists believe, "God doesn't exist because there is no supporting empirical evidence for His existence."In String Theory terms, our membrane isn't isolated but the stuff attached to it is. There's a theory that both gravity and the quantum field are generated in extraspacial dimensions.
Outside our membrane spacetime isn't necessary.
Yes, this would be the B-theory of time. However, one would still have to explain why there exists a four-dimensional space-time block.Indeed, it is theorized that if you could view our 3D+1 world from outside the membranes, it would all appear as a singularity (even time). It just appears to stretch endlessly in all directions because we're trapped inside it.
Finally! You're actually talking about the argument now. It's everything that begins to exist has a cause, not everything that exists has a cause. God would be an entity that never began to exist, but has always existed. To how illustrate what this means, some mathematicians, logicians, and philosophers believe logic and mathematical concepts are things (and I use this term loosely) that have always existed. They're what is known as necessary beings (beings that cannot fail to exist). The opposing type of being would be a contingent being; a being that doesn't or didn't have to exist.You suggest that everything that exists came from elsewhere, so where did God come from?
Again, you would have to define what you mean by "time." In my view, God has always existed and "time" didn't come into being until God's first creation. Within this view, it becomes sort of meaningless to ask what God was doing prior to creation. But I will say He was existing, perfectly, possessing the attributes: omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.If God is eternal, then that means he spent just as much time before creation existing as he will after the end of the world, so this begs the question: what took him so long to create, and what was he doing all that time?
Â
[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]To me, it still seems like the statement "spacetime is meaningless" is hyperbolic nonsense that is being used as a way to sweep your lack of knowledge of the subject under the rug.ÂMy first sentence is supported by the following sentences. I tell you spacetime is meaningless and then in the following sentences to describe how distance and time are both irrelevant.
Sleepwalk7
Again, you would have to define what you mean by "time." In my view, God has always existed and "time" didn't come into being until God's first creation. Within this view, it becomes sort of meaningless to ask what God was doing prior to creation. But I will say He was existing, perfectly, possessing the attributes: omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.
Â
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Â
Â
Â
HAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[QUOTE="lostrib"]
you're not supposed to be able to prove god's existence, you're just meant to have faith that he does
InEMplease
Yup.
*sips beer*
beer is for satan
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. Illogical leap.Â
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universes existence is God (from 2, 4).
---
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. There is no evidence that any sort of all powerful being was said cause
---
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. False assumption
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
---
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. False assumption
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance. False assumption
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
---
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. False assumption
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#ixzz2UiSrAM1CSleepwalk7
I don't know what arguments you're referring to save for the ones where you implicitly mention--so I'll just respond to those. If the universe didn't have a cause, then that would mean it came into being uncaused from nonbeing. Talk about magic. You're free to believe that if you want, but to me this seems irrational. To ask what caused the first cause is logically incoherent, because you're talking about the first cause. If something were truly the first cause, then obviously it couldn't have a cause itself. Your position on morality is nothing but circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. You're going to have to provide reasons for why you think objective moral values do not exist. And by saying objective moral values do not exist, what you're essentially saying is this, "torturing and killing babies isn't objectively wrong. It is only my opinion that it is wrong."I know this has got to be a troll thread, but I feel like playing anyway
1. Unproven statements, without any support for those qualities.
2. Sequentially speaking, those three points are true. But the second point requires that the universe had to have a cause, and no one knows if it did. Besides, if the universe had a first cause, what caused that first cause?
3. Morality is not universal, also, the argument fails because the first point is groundless. Morality is based on the society around it, and therefore is not objective.
Naw, I don't care anymore
Starchaser187
beer is for satan[QUOTE="Mithrandir50"][QUOTE="InEMplease"]
Yup.
*sips beer*
InEMplease
Satan can buy his own f*cking beer!
Beer is the blood of satan Pancakes are the bodyTo me, it still seems like the statement "spacetime is meaningless" is hyperbolic nonsense that is being used as a way to sweep your lack of knowledge of the subject under the rug.Â[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]
My first sentence is supported by the following sentences. I tell you spacetime is meaningless and then in the following sentences to describe how distance and time are both irrelevant.
Mithrandir50
Again, you would have to define what you mean by "time." In my view, God has always existed and "time" didn't come into being until God's first creation. Within this view, it becomes sort of meaningless to ask what God was doing prior to creation. But I will say He was existing, perfectly, possessing the attributes: omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.
Â
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Â
Â
Â
HAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I can only speculate on what you think is funny. You seem to think that writing, "Asking what God was doing (implying the existence of time) prior to the existence of time is meaningless." With "space-time is meaningless," in regard to quantum mechanics. Could you explain the parallel, because I don't see one. How could quantum mechanics make space-time meaningless when quantum mechanics is part of the fabric of space-time?[QUOTE="InEMplease"][QUOTE="Mithrandir50"] beer is for satanMithrandir50
Satan can buy his own f*cking beer!
Beer is the blood of satan Pancakes are the bodyI eat satan more often than I eat jesus! (mostly because I'm not a big wine drinker)
Beer is the blood of satan Pancakes are the body[QUOTE="Mithrandir50"][QUOTE="InEMplease"]
Satan can buy his own f*cking beer!
Guybrush_3
I eat satan more often than I eat jesus! (mostly because I'm not a big wine drinker)
Satan is tasty especially when he is covered with the vaginal juices of Mary (syrup). Too far?To me, it still seems like the statement "spacetime is meaningless" is hyperbolic nonsense that is being used as a way to sweep your lack of knowledge of the subject under the rug. And now you've done it again with, "distance and time are both irrelevant." In what way? You didn't even define "time" for us, so how are we supposed to follow what you're writing? For instance, I define time as merely events or changes. Using this definition, even quantum mechanics would be susceptible to time (because in quantum mechanics there are events or changes). Although stating that quantum mechanics is susceptible to time is a bit too strong. I don't mean to say that time is some sort of entity.Well, a vacuum isn't really nothing. That's a fact. And it's also not what we're talking about there. You claimed that in quantum mechanics particles can come out of nothing. That's incorrect, unless you're equivocating "nothing" with "quantum field" or "vacuum." When people hear or read, "Particles can come from nothing," they think nonbeing. And I don't know of any scientific literature that espouses such a view.And to answer your next question, one has to define something. And then you get into the whole 'empty space' debacle.Sleepwalk7
I've gone over this many times on this forum so I'm used to trying to describe things in terms most people can understand. I've been studying quantum physics since 1995, and I can most definately pull out the math.
By 'nothing' I was suggesting in the same way a photon is 'nothing' as in 'there is no there, there.' Sure a photon has mass (momentum) but there's nothing to catch (no rest-mass), to observe, though you can detect.
Â
It's interesting to watch atheists posit extra-dimensions or other universes without any supporting empirical evidence, because man of these same atheists believe, "God doesn't exist because there is no supporting empirical evidence for His existence."Sleepwalk7
Going on the above, no one has ever seen a photon, either, despite the fact that photons are what allows us sight. We have inferred their existence from their interation with other particles and fields, the same as we can infer the exstience of extra dimensions by the fact that the math tells us that strings have to move in more than three spatial directions.
Is this unquestional evidence? Well, it's got the same weight as "Look around you = God". So until you come off that horse...
Â
 Again, you would have to define what you mean by "time." In my view, God has always existed and "time" didn't come into being until God's first creation. Within this view, it becomes sort of meaningless to ask what God was doing prior to creation. But I will say He was existing, perfectly, possessing the attributes: omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.Sleepwalk7
^And the cop-out.^
I think the best proof against the Biblical God are in the stories that predate the Torah: Gilgamesh, Homers Odyssey, the Assyrian and Phoenician myths, etc. And beyond that, there's Jewish history itself: the Jews borrow the Phoenician alphabet as their first written script and the first thing they come up with is something strikingly similar to The Epic of Gilgamesh.
Then there's the whole Yahweh issue...what with YHWH being traced to a pantheon of Gods where he happens to be the Storm/War God, and then his appearance in the Old Testament in the visage of storm clouds and thunder and always declaring war and so on.
Oh, what happened to his female consort, Asherah? She first belonged to Baal, then Yahweh, and then Yahweh decided he didn't like her. The Jews took a while to catch up, though...I believe Asherah poles were in the temple as late as the events of 1 Kings.
Just about every story in the OT has a pre-existing analog in the mythos of other cultures. The story of Christ has several.
Oh, and why does Hebrew record the first verse of The Bible as "In the Beginning GODS", in the plural (Elohim)? Oh yeah...Asherah.
So you see, human history itself leads to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is a construct.
Â
God exists outside of the universe. That rule only applies to things in this universe.1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
rastotm
2. God has no cause.
3. God never began to exist
4. He does not exist.
Since you didn't write anything of substance, I'm left with responding to one or two word blurbs.[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"]1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. Illogical leap.Â
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universes existence is God (from 2, 4).
---
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. There is no evidence that any sort of all powerful being was said cause
---
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. False assumption
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
---
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. False assumption
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance. False assumption
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
---
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. False assumption
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#ixzz2UiSrAM1CGuybrush_3
I take this to mean you think the premise is false or probably false, which means you think there is a better explanation for the existence of the universe than God. What is this explanation?illogical leap
Once you conceptually analyze what the cause of the universe would need to possess as far as causal powers go, you come to the realization that it is God. For instance, the cause of the universe would need to be timeless, immaterial, powerful, and an agent.There is no evidence that any sort of all powerful being was said cause
Then how would objective moral values exist outside of God?False assumption
Then what other possible explanations are there for the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life outside of physical necessity, chance or design? And why do you think it is wrong to say it is more plausible than not that the fine-tuning is due to design as opposed to physical necessity or chance?False assumption
So you're saying it is impossible for a maximally powerful being to exist? How so?False assumption
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.Sleepwalk7Wat?
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.Sleepwalk7Wat?
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.Sleepwalk7Wat?
Yes, this does seem plausible.1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.rastotm
True. Because God didn't begin to exist. He has always existed. A necessary being.
2. God has no cause.
True.
3. God never began to exist
This is a non-sequitur unless one presumes that everything in existence is contingent. In other words, you'd have to believe that everything in existence had a beginning--or that there was a "time" when everything in existence didn't exist.
4. He does not exist.
if there is no god then how come everyone screams about him while they have sex?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment