The existence of God is self-evident.

>Jesus didn't REALLY die on the cross
Leave it to Christians to go 5 minutes without inventing new heresies

Are you making the argument that Jesus' spirit died on the cross? Because no Christian has ever believed that at any point in time. After his body died on the Cross, his spirit went to Hades to preach to the dead before ascending into Heaven.

Death is the separation of the body from the soul. The soul does not "die" when the body does. The resurrection is the reunion of the soul with the body.

>Jesus died on the cross. How is this controversial?
Yes, Jesus died on the cross. That doesn't mean his soul was destroyed or that his soul was killed, only that his body died and his soul was separated from it. This is the commonly understood definition of "death". Only God can destroy the soul. It has always been the tradition of the Church that after death (the death of the body which results in the separation of body and soul) that the soul goes to some other place awaiting judgment. It's not controversial at all.

It is your question that defies logic, not God.

Your question is nonsensical, and I will treat it as such.

Nice myth wienersmoker

Nice argument, atheist.

Ad hominem is also not an argument. Grow up.

That's not the argument. By the way, you still haven't presented a counter argument, you can only say dirty words and call people names.

Did you just hear about Russell's paradox in an epic reddit post or something?

Why don't you come up with a coherent question, then I'll answer it. Why do atheists always resort to name calling? It's like you only have emotional arguments instead of logical arguments. You're not an intellectual, you're just a poser.

When you ask this question, I can only assume you don't understand the words you are using, because if you did, you wouldn't be asking this question. It's like asking if mathematics contradicts logic.

All you've done is define something to exist, and then claiming it to exist. I define white bruce lee as an existing being, doesn't mean he does.

Is it a self-evident statement to say "That which exists, exists."? If it's not, explain why.

Does logic defy mathematics? Just answer the question, you pompous moron.

Why? Why can't you give a simple true or false to a nonsensical question?

No, because it would not be a thing which exists by nature, and which could not not exist.

It means the essence of God is to exist. Being is what He is, and He is being (Exodus 3:14). This means that if something doesn't exist, or it exists contingently, it isn't God. And that means God must exist, or He wouldn't be the thing which is by nature, and which cannot not be.

The white bruce lee is contingent, and therefore not self-existent

The fact that he didn't exist from eternity and was created by things outside of himself (plus the fact that he no longer exists as a living person).

No.

[...]
You sound salty. Why not just point out where I'm wrong, instead of this cope posturing. Makes you look like sore losers.

>where I'm wrong
The epic reddit post you saw is about mathematical set theory. It has literally nothing to do with God
>God contains everything
No, that would be pantheism which is paganism.
>God contains everything therefore Russell's paradox
Even if pantheism was true, God still wouldn't be a mathematical set. So this is false too
This is idiotic

Anon, you're so moronic that you are arguing against yourself.

>Great, then I can conceive of a being greater than him.
?
>Oh really, I wasn't aware of that
That's probably because you're a moron.

>A being that is not bound by logic is greater than a being that is. A being that contains all things is greater than a being that does not.
This is arbitrary, indefensible, and irrelevant.

>A being that is not bound by morals is greater than a being that is. A being that contains all actions is greater than a being that does not.

That depends on how you define "great".

>I can conceive of a being greater than him
He answered this already.
He said that humans defy logic, not God.
Logic is God's will. If you you defy his logic, you are sinning. Just because you have the free will to lie, doesn't mean you should.

All you've done is define something to exist, and then claiming it to exist. I define white bruce lee as an existing being, doesn't mean he does.

Great is things I like
Not great is icky stuff

>If there were "multiple gods" who created everything, they would share the nature or essence of being self-existent, in which case they would not actually be "multiple gods", but merely parts of a greater whole.
Yeah that makes sense. I'm wrong about that one

>The "true god" would be the one God which is not contingent on other beings outside of himself, and thus One in nature.
But what is driving the true god to forbid the worship of false gods? Unless this god has human psychology (baseless assumption) it would be impossible to tell whether or not it would give a shit about people worshiping other gods doughbeit

>God would want truth to be known over falsehood, since knowledge of the truth is a greater good than ignorance of the truth.
>Since God is the ultimate source of goodness and truth
I just don't see how these criteria can be derived without reading the religious material that espouses them. So to me it seems like circular logic (this god is the true god because it condemns false gods ---> the true god condemns false gods because of its inherent traits ---> these traits are defined by the theology surrounding this god)
Also I'm pretty sure other religions condemn the worship of false gods in a similar way to how the Abrahamic faiths do (correct me if I'm wrong)

>you can proceed to see why that God would want to make himself known
I don't see what procedure you can take to come to that conclusion
>I'm not arguing that the true god can be known merely by his denouncing of false gods
OK. I suspected you thought that but thank you for elucidating
>but that you could eliminate the obvious falsehood of religions that allow for multiple separate gods
I don't get what's so obvious about it

>If there was one God who created everything, polytheism would be false.
Yes
>Thus any religion that promotes polytheism would be false, and you would be left with the religions that denounce polytheism.
What about a religion that does not mention false gods at all? The reason you gave for the true god wanting people to believe in him and him alone is in order to maximize truth but I don't see why the true god would want (maybe want isn't the right word) to do that, even if part of their nature is truth.

>In order to distinguish the true god from the false gods.
Why would the true god try to do that

My point is that I haven't been given evidence or a train of logic that points to the true god being inclined to act in one way or another. Without knowing if god would act in one way or advise people to act in one way, your point that the true god can be found by finding the one(s) that act in a certain way or advise a certain thing is unfounded.

Figure it out, moron

It depends on whether you are capable of answering simple questions. Is the true God a god of truth or of untruth? If it is in the nature of truth to dispel falsehood, then it is also in the nature of God who is the embodiment of truth to dispel falsehood. How could it be otherwise? You seem to believe so but you haven't made any argument as to why.

>I see no reason God couldn't lie, for morally sufficient reasons.
Then you don't understand God, or you are talking about some other God which you have not explained.

Why are you telling me all this stuff about souls?
I've only been talking about Jesus dying on the cross, and Jesus being God.

>I've only been talking about Jesus dying on the cross, and Jesus being God.
What does "dying" mean, other than the death of the body and the separation of the soul from the body?

>Is the true God a god of truth or of untruth?
Do the terms "true god" and "god of truth" mean the same thing to you? If not, how did you come to the realization that the only god must only be truthful and must pursue truth
>If it is in the nature of truth to dispel falsehood
It is not. Lies and truths often coincide and sometimes lies dispel truths

>It is the nature of God to be truthful
How did you come to this conclusion?
>Truth is greater than falsehood
What does this even mean
>just as existence is greater than nonexistence or light is greater than darkness
What do you mean by greater
>What is your argument for why God would be a promulgator of falsehood?
I don't have one, and you don't have an argument for why he wouldn't be

>I just gave you the argument.
Okay, here's my "argument" then:
It is the nature of God to be deceitful. God is the worst conceivable Being. Falsehood is greater than truth, just as nonexistence is greater than existence or darkness is greater than light. What is your argument for why God would be a promulgator of truthhood?

Why do I need an argument, and you don't? What's with the double-standard
You just asserted stuff

Asserting your position is not an argument, moron

The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
>the place and momentum of particle being random
Do you not know that the whole life of every last atom was foreordained before creation by the hand of God? Nothing in this world is random.

>You just arbitrarily set up some axioms and you're in business.
"There is no truth." How's that for an axiom? I'd like to see you build a system with that starting point.

>Define "truth".
Are you confused by the notion?
>That's how mathematicians go about things
No, that's how mathematicians go about mathematics. And that's still not "arbitrary" either. Otherwise, 2+2=5 because I said so.
>The proof is an emergent thing from those axioms and definitions.
If proof means anything, it means that it is absolute, universal, and objective, and not the mere runoff of an arbitrary axiom. Otherwise, it shall be impossible to prove anything, as even the very notion of truth becomes little more than the product of my whim.
>Or he just doesn't exist. You're undermining God's existence, when you're making him more and more abstract.
You are completely ignorant of what religious people believe. You've never read anything they've written, never listened to anything they've said, you have no idea what they believe now of ever and made up a narrative that suits your feelings instead of doing any research at all, and now you're complaining that I do not defend this strawman invented entirely in your own head.

Please, understand that our doctrine of God is not some ad hoc invention. Christians a thousand years ago did not believe God was a bearded guy on a cloud, and Christians did not change their doctrine of God in response to atheism or natural science. I can open books written multiple thousands of years ago and show you the exact same God I describe to you now. Recall what that other Anon said, if you could point to a material thing and say "this is God" it wouldn't be. Not only is God not some physical thing you can pull up on radar, but doing so would be mutually exclusive with the very essence of the God we present to you.
>Completely contradictory property that you don't want to touch with a ten-foot pole.
Cope.
>Go frick yourself.
Seethe.

>It's funny you bring this up, because there are algebraic structures where 2 and 2 does equal 5.

You are beyond reasoning then.

Why would I try to reason with someone who has abandoned the use of reason? It would be an exercise in futility. If you think 2+2=5, there is nothing I could say to help you.

> It depends on how you're defining the addition
Translation: if you redefine 2+2=5 so that it doesn't actually mean that, it's true

>Not my fault you're not familiar with it.
Imagine being smug about fricking up basic arithmetic

Nowhere was logic given up, the concept is free of contradictions. Just a bit counterintuitive.

>Truth is that property whereby a thing can be said to be true.
You're reasoning in circles.
>No it isn't
Literally is. Open up any math textbook, you'll see. I'm not fooling you.
>Why do I have to follow that condition?
Because of the "Ex falso quodlibet" thing.
>2+2=5
It's funny to me that you're so opinionated on 2 and 2 equals 4. Again, as I told the other anon, it depends on how you define the addition. You can come up with a context - in this case a so-called ring structure - where this statements does make sense.
>laws of mathematics
They have trouble justifying it themselves, regardless of religious convictions. I only bring it up to make a point about what a "proof" is. I only see a "proof" in the mathematical sense.

>It wasn't asked in good faith in the first place
Duh. Nobody here ever argues religion in good faith

Meds and sproke

>And I can assure you, you can't prove any theorem, unless you set up definitions.
But those definitions are not arbitrary nor is the meaning derived from the definer. Changing the definition of a symbol merely changes the idea under a review, the ideas themselves remain inviolate by such linguistic sophistry. Take the phrase "the apple is red". The proposition is not the statement. The words "the", "apple", "is" and "red" are mere linguistic constructs, communicative tools; there is no apple in the sentence, it is just a word. However, these symbols have a meaning, that is, an idea is affixed to them. We can play with the symbols all we like without touching the ideas, that is, we can redefine "apple" so that it is now identical to "tree", and we can redefine "red" so it is now identical to "ocean", but while the statement is now false, the proposition it once contained is still unchanged and true.
>In a way that's sadly how things are.
Conceding my original point is an interesting strategy
>unless you studied theology
You didn't just not study theology, you didn't put in as much effort as watching a 5 minute youtube video. You failed to understand even the most basic aspects of our faith. Can you explain to me why I should defend strawmen you made up?
>And yes, I have read the entirety of the OT to my misfortune
It works better if you keep your eyes open while you read it.
>No, also tl:dr.
Why are you having this conversation if you insist on being completely unreasonable?

>You just arbitrarily set up some axioms
Lol, that's as much "proof" as your feelings.
>No particle behavior is actually random and there's no "hidden variable" that makes sense of it
This is a gross category error since God is not material nor an aspect or governed by laws of nature, so His sovereignty would not be detected scientifically. The happenings of time are identical to what God decreed would happen in creation. This is a consequence of His omnipotent power. Thus, though the behavior of the particle may appear random, and might even be described accurately as such within the context of the material creation (that is, not deterministically influenced by forces), it actually happens exactly as God willed it to. No scientific theory or formula does or could impugn this.
>So you're actually factually incorrect here.
You are a fool blind to your own biases.

Your gods are false.

>shameless samegay
Nope.

Flat-out wrong. There are things where are not self-refuting, but are also not self-evident. Such as the existence of galaxies outside of the observable universe or the continuum hypothesis.

Also, what theists love to conceal: Logic has never been proven to be as universal as they'd want and the development of logic suggests that it is a man-made invention. So there's no guarantee that logic would carry over to cosmological concepts such as God.

Is the non-existence of a galaxy outside of the observable universe self-refuting?

Yea we all have presuppositions, but if we understand philosophical discourse, we don't force outsiders to accept our own presuppositions as the starting point of the argument. That is just called an internal critique anyway and can backfire easily.

>Well, you gain no new information, right
What makes you think I would?
>Okay, link it.

>Are you confused by the notion?
I asking for your definition.
>No, that's how mathematicians go about mathematics.
It's arbitrary. You don't have to use the axioms that underpin math. Drawback is, your theory might not be interesting. But, in essence, you can define whatever you want, under the condition that contradictions are avoided.
>2+2=5
It's funny you bring this up, because there are algebraic structures where 2 and 2 does equal 5.
>If proof means anything, it means that it is absolute, universal, and objective, and not the mere runoff of an arbitrary axiom.
It's safe to say that object of study in mathematics is the "proof" and no discipline studies it in as much detail as mathematics does. And I can assure you, you can't prove any theorem, unless you set up definitions. I know of no proof that is absolute, universal, and objective.
>Otherwise, it shall be impossible to prove anything
In a way that's sadly how things are.
>you can't know nothing about religion, unless you studied theology
Your holy book should be able to stand on its own, don't you think? And yes, I have read the entirety of the OT to my misfortune.

>Please, believe me.
No, also tl:dr.

>Because the OP made it a matter of discussion?
No he didn't
>What do you mean?
For example, if I believe I'm about to be flattened by a semi, I could see how it would be impractical to doubt that since the result of doing do would be becoming street pizza. On the other hand, if it's not true, the hallucinatory semi wouldn't be able to do anything to me.
>you can't know for certainty that something's true
Do you know that for certain?
>seethe
Cope!

I have humbled myself. I don't need to humble myself to a doctrine that typically makes men incredibly proud and angry which basically describes James White's entire demeanour. I'll let these men speak for themselves however.

>makes men incredibly proud and angry
You're the one who's proud and angry here.
>which basically describes James White's entire demeanour
See, why do you have a grudge against this man and what does it have to do with me?

I'm having trouble saying you're a changed man actually. I'm looking at someone bearing false witness at a brother because of apparently nothing but his own irrational emotions and misplaced pride. You need to go sit down and think, and humble yourself. Repent.

>He literally lied to Leighton Flowers about what their first debate would be about and switched it to am exegesis of Romans 9 at the last possible moment.
That's not true.
>There is no evidence suggesting he has been regenerated anymore than there is evidence for Stephen Anderson
I don't know why you harbor such a (sinful) grudge against this man, but it is manifest that it is not for any good reason.
>The big mistake is taking systematic theology as faith. There is no faith without doubt and consternation.
You are a very proud man deriving a false sense of superiority from absurdism, and mistaking vain idiocy for cleverness. Being a fool and not understanding scripture does not make you superior. I tell you again to humble yourself, because swimming in conceit as you are worries me you will be the one to hear "depart from me".

>What makes you think I would?
You're going in circles again. Just read what I wrote about this. No point in reiterating.
>

>Are you confused by the notion?

I asking for your definition.
>No, that's how mathematicians go about mathematics.
It's arbitrary. You don't have to use the axioms that underpin math. Drawback is, your theory might not be interesting. But, in essence, you can define whatever you want, under the condition that contradictions are avoided.
>2+2=5
It's funny you bring this up, because there are algebraic structures where 2 and 2 does equal 5.
>If proof means anything, it means that it is absolute, universal, and objective, and not the mere runoff of an arbitrary axiom.
It's safe to say that object of study in mathematics is the "proof" and no discipline studies it in as much detail as mathematics does. And I can assure you, you can't prove any theorem, unless you set up definitions. I know of no proof that is absolute, universal, and objective.
>Otherwise, it shall be impossible to prove anything
In a way that's sadly how things are.
>you can't know nothing about religion, unless you studied theology
Your holy book should be able to stand on its own, don't you think? And yes, I have read the entirety of the OT to my misfortune.

>Please, believe me.
No, also tl:dr. (You)
I stayed perfectly consistent here.
>No he didn't
Literally go up the reply chain.
>For example, if I believe I'm about to be flattened by a semi, I could see how it would be impractical to doubt that since the result of doing do would be becoming street pizza. On the other hand, if it's not true, the hallucinatory semi wouldn't be able to do anything to me.
No idea what point you're even trying to make here, sorry.
>Do you know that for certain?
To a degree where it would be unreasonable to doubt, yes.
>Cope!
seethe with a extra-salty exclamation mark

I have humbled myself. I don't need to humble myself to a doctrine that typically makes men incredibly proud and angry which basically describes James White's entire demeanour. I'll let these men speak for themselves however.

Christianity is stories + religious practices

Anon said I should believe in polytheism as opposed to monotheism. I'm asking why polytheism is true. If there is only one true God who created everything, then monotheism is true, not polytheism.

That God exists is self evident. That there is only one God is evidenced by the essence of God which is self-existence. Multiple Gods who both self-exist and who both created everything would be a contradiction, as they would no longer be separate, but of the same nature.

>What does it contradict?
How can you have multiple Gods who are self-existent and both created everything?

Because they would both have the same nature, and would therefore not be separate gods.

Self-existence is the nature of God.

Stop being an autist and think about what you're arguing about for just a few seconds

What's wrong with it? Can you not come up with an argument?

The essence of unicorns is to exist despite being unprovable and without unicorns there wouldn't be rainbow magic which grants us free will through imagination.
We have free will thus rainbow magic is a thing thus unicorns exist.

If your definition of "unicorn" is self-existent necessary being who created everything, then you are referring to God.

What is "dense" about it? Can you use big boy words? Is it too hard for you to understand?

>I made my own mary sue to counter your mary sue

>That God exists is self evident
How so?

>god exists because god can't not exist

I'm not trying to "win" an argument, I'm answering why it is definitionally self-evident.

It's definitionally self-evident that "That which exists, exists".

You think that it's not self-evident that "That which is, is"?

The essence of unicorns is to exist despite being unprovable and without unicorns there wouldn't be rainbow magic which grants us free will through imagination.
We have free will thus rainbow magic is a thing thus unicorns exist.

>After all the negation of the proposition "Unicorns exist" is self-refuting.
No, because self-existing is not part of the nature of unicorns.

God is "Being" per se. A unicorn is a contingent creature.

It's definitionally true. A contingent being is not God.

Because something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Just like something cannot be true and not true at the same time.

No, the "argument" is that God's existence is self-evident to anyone who knows the essence of God.

The essence of God... is it diesel or gasoil? Wouldn't won't to put in the wrong fuel

I disagree with that statement. Can you prove that the existence of anything cannot be proven?

Ok then we have a different definition of "prove".

If you think that you literally need to BE God in order to prove something, then I don't see what the purpose of this discussion is.

So what's the point of telling me this?

How do you know that? Are you God?

But how do you know that if you're not God?

You said it is impossible to know anything unless you are God. So how do you know that unless you are God?

>I know that I know nothing
How do you know that?

How do you "see" it? Is it self-evident? Was it revealed to you by God?

How do you know you have perception?

How do you know that feelings are true? I can literally keep going until I deconstruct your entire worldview. Can you come back with a better argument than "I don't know anything"?

Wrong. If god is all powerful he should strike me down right now as I type this.
Spoiler alert, he hasn't and he won't.

>What point?
That God is unknowable. It is really pathetic that you consider yourself devout when you can't even grasp this.

Because you lack self-reflection like a hylic. Until you see within yourself, you won't achieve deeper understanding.

>You can lead a horse to water...

>You can lead a hylic within...

Wisdom is not ignorance. It is not knowledge either. You've truly understood nothing.

Read Matthew 7:3-5 again. Then reflect.

God allows nothing because he's not real.