Hobart Bliggity Posted:

LMAO @ PROVING WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT

You somehow kept posting and yet missed the entire 23 page thread this has to be some kind of record.

No actually, I read every single comment, but you failed to prove or disprove anything.

shrtcat Posted:

Bumper cars.

Plz don’t hijack my friend’s thread next time kthx.

Hobart Bliggity Posted:

I’d love to see you respond to my whole post for once

I only respond to that which is worth responding to. If you don’t like that—tough. Get over yourself.

I know that you erroneously believe that I have blind faith in logic. That’s YOUR problem. YOU deal with it. Don’t force YOUR errors upon me.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

Good thing I’m not claiming that. What I am claiming is that if something’s definition makes it impossible to exist, then it can’t exist.

What type of ‘God’ refutes itself by definition? I’m just wondering as to what definition of God your argument is effective against.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

Anything with spiritual/supernatural/created the universe/powers to do the logically impossible.

Now some people define “god” as “nature” or some part of nature, in which case yes, the actual thing so named exists, but to call it “god” is simply bizarre.

What would the ‘source’ of the laws of the universe be called?

the **** was hobart banned and not every other trolling dude ITT?

selective modding is getting mad gay.

Hobart Bliggity Posted:

The Universe, since it exists, must have a beginning.

Unsupported bumertion. Rejected as such.

Hobart Bliggity Posted:

Now, for existence apart from the universe. No, “existence” in our frame of reference is limited to the universe.

Then explain existence apart from the universe.

Hobart Bliggity Posted:

However, since the universe necessarily has an origin

No. Necessarily, it didn’t. Necessarily, it can’t.

Oh, and if god was within the universe, how could god create the universe? The universe would have already been there in the first place.

DarkDespair5 Posted:

OC, your argument about the universe’s existence could ultimately be proved or disproved. We learn more about the geometry of the universe by the second, and the existence of a “multiverse” with variable physical laws could very well cause logical problems.

Yet how would those interact with ours?

DarkDespair5 Posted:

The gravity of objects actually bend space-time slightly. The universes would likely wrap upon themselves, creating an interlinked geometry, with the fundamental constants based on a factor of distance.

Unfortunately, that’s merely sci fi.

DarkDespair5 Posted:

If there is merely a single universe, what precludes the possibility of a previous life-form creating the elements that compose us from primitive particles?

Why introduce that when there is no reason to do so?

DarkDespair5 Posted:

What do you mean? It’s just a separate question…

I simply don’t see any need to multiply entities unnecessarily.

DarkDespair5 Posted:

If by sci-fi you mean “cannot be proven or refuted with current data”, then yes.

Or “something that just sounds like a heisenberg compensator”.