1. God is a necessary being

2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

4. Causes can be Natural.

5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

Too weak. Im sorry if im not on point with you.

Where ur soul n spirit connected prove existence of God.Stop thinking ru.bbish else u go gaga

Kay 17: 1. God is a necessary being

2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

4. Causes can be Natural.

5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

organize your thoughts properly before posting.. wat nonsense garbled garbage is this.
Your a disgrace to your atheist folks..
bullet lists of nonsense.
nonsense = not making/lacking sufficient sense to b understandable..

Kay 17: 1. God is a necessary being

2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

4. Causes can be Natural.

5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

What a "TRUNCATED SENCELESS LOGIC". Let me give you a similar analogy of what you posted, and I will see what you can make out of it.
1. ALCOHOL is a necessary liquid.
2. If ALCOHOL exist, it necessarily exist.
3. ALCOHOL is an artificial liquid.
4. Liquids can be natural.
5. A Liquid can be artificial or natural.
6. A Liquid is not necessarity artificial.
7. Therefore ALCOHOL is not necessary and hence can not exist.
The loophole in you logic is in the CONCLUTION that if something is not necessary, hence, it can not exist. If this is true, then why is it that "byproducts of metabolism"(which are no more necessary) still exist?

Kay 17: 1. God is a necessary being

2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

4. Causes can be Natural.

5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

Are you drunk or something?

This one na case of speaking (typing) before you think.

I'm very sure you're not a scientist like Folykaze.

Kay 17: 1. God is a necessary being

2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

4. Causes can be Natural.

5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

Ain't you the God? You exist,you are and same is everyone!

Lovethywilbedon: What a "TRUNCATED SENCELESS LOGIC". Let me give you a similar analogy of what you posted, and I will see what you can make out of it.
1. ALCOHOL is a necessary liquid.
2. If ALCOHOL exist, it necessarily exist.
3. ALCOHOL is an artificial liquid.
4. Liquids can be natural.
5. A Liquid can be artificial or natural.
6. A Liquid is not necessarity artificial.
7. Therefore ALCOHOL is not necessary and hence can not exist.
The loophole in you logic is in the CONCLUTION that if something is not necessary, hence, it can not exist. If this is true, then why is it that "byproducts of metabolism"(which are no more necessary) still exist?

No my conclusion was: if a necessarily existing being/thing is not necessary, then it doesn't exist NOT If something is not necessary, it doesn't exist.

Deep Sight:

Are you drunk or something?

I'm sure I'm not.

kambo:

organize your thoughts properly before posting.. wat nonsense garbled garbage is this.
Your a disgrace to your atheist folks..
bullet lists of nonsense.
nonsense = not making/lacking sufficient sense to b understandable..

Just point out what's wrong with it.

There's nothing to explain in your post.
It lacks coherence and common sense.

Kay 17:

No my conclusion was: if a necessarily existing being/thing is not necessary, then it doesn't exist NOT If something is not necessary, it doesn't exist.

WHAT A CONTRADICTORY, FALLACIOUS LOGI
1. a NECESSARILY..... being IS NO NECESSARY? Please explain HOW?
2. EXISTING being, if not necessary, THEN IT DOESN'T EXIST? Please explain HOW? Because, Just as "Andromeda Galaxy", is NOT NECESSARY to the the inhabitants of the planet "Earth" (Milky Way Galaxy). So therefore, "Andromeda Galaxy" DOES NOT EXIST. But we all know that Andromeda DOES EXIST.
See Kay 17 I have an advice for you, when next you want to prove a point, dont employ propositional logic because it is very obvious you know next to nothing about "LOGIC"

^^^

Your objection number 2 was what I was exactly trying to correct you about!

I wasn't saying an existing being is not existing for being contingent, rather God's essential quality is existing necessarily, thus placing him beyond validation by experience or empiricism. God wldnt not exist, if he doesn't do so necessarily.

kwangi: There's nothing to explain in your post.
It lacks coherence and common sense.

What don't you agree with??

Kay 17: 1. God is a necessary being

2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

4. Causes can be Natural.

5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

Looks interesting. Though I usually avoid ontological arguments because they're too easy to kick out.

Deep Sight:

Are you drunk or something?

Did you spot a flaw?

kwangi: There's nothing to explain in your post.
It lacks coherence and common sense.

What line lacks coherence?

kambo:

organize your thoughts properly before posting.. wat nonsense garbled garbage is this.
Your a disgrace to your atheist folks..
bullet lists of nonsense.
nonsense = not making/lacking sufficient sense to b understandable..

Which line or lines do you think make no sense?

Kay,


Sorry but you fail so hard.....


Which kind reverse ontological argument is this? The ontological argumntalready fails....then to reverse it?


Modal logic is garbage in, garbage out.


Start with a false premise, end up with false conclusion

Start with a true premise, end up with a good conclusion

Thank you oh thehomer, bare insults and zero contributions.

@logicboy

I merely followed its trend.

Kay 17: Thank you oh thehomer, bare insults and zero contributions.

@logicboy

I merely followed its trend.

lol....but why...why did y do it? lol......



I am bored......nowadays, there is no difference between Anony and Ijawkid in terms of arguments.......

Is there no christian apologist anymore?

Kay 17: ^^^

Your objection number 2 was what I was exactly trying to correct you about!

I wasn't saying an existing being is not existing for being contingent, rather God's essential quality is existing necessarily, thus placing him beyond validation by experience or empiricism. God wldnt not exist, if he doesn't do so necessarily.

By the way WHO DECIDES WHAT IS NECESSARY?

Logicboy03:


lol....but why...why did y do it? lol......



I am bored......nowadays, there is no difference between Anony and Ijawkid in terms of arguments.......

Is there no christian apologist anymore?

Oh they're apologists all right. They're just bad at it.

thehomer:

Oh they're apologists all right. They're just bad at it.

lol.....Anony has truly lost his touch.....very rare that I unfollow his threads!



Or maybe i can take this as a good sign that atheists have finally cornered the christians.....

Logicboy03:

lol.....Anony has truly lost his touch.....very rare that unfollow his threads!



Or maybe can take this as a good sign that atheists have finally cornered the christians.....

Just in the Nairaland religion section.

They might combine with Muslims to crush atheists out there in Nigeria.

Lovethywilbedon: By the way WHO DECIDES WHAT IS NECESSARY?

Before we get to that, is the argument valid on its own premises and conclusions??

Logicboy03:

lol.....Anony has truly lost his touch.....very rare that I unfollow his threads!



Or maybe i can take this as a good sign that atheists have finally cornered the christians.....

@logicboy I ws not even going to comment dis thread becos of the logic jargons n u bailed me out. Laughing at d thought u've xtians cornered, becos u guys have not come across xtians that are very knowledgeable. In some of previous posts I ws able to answer some of ur questions. I think I might just have a little time 4 all u nairaland atheists 2nite.

thehomer:

Which line or lines do you think make no sense?

I may make an effort later to respond more fully to this incoherent babble by the OP.
but , if he's really convinced he did his best and is only being bashed out of wrong sentiments,
he can anonymously email his posting to a more respected authority (or authorities)
and observe their replies.
most wont bother replying
or will politely correct him
the impatient ones who've had a bad day will tell him the raw truth.

posting as if your learning rules of grammer and thinking at the same time while composing ur post..

interesting to see some atheistic solidarity here.
God or no God/ man can't do without a sense of FAMILY and that is God's invention. isnt God wise?

** terribly bored of this site,nowadays..**

noblefada:

@logicboy I ws not even going to comment dis thread becos of the logic jargons n u bailed me out. Laughing at d thought u've xtians cornered, becos u guys have not come across xtians that are very knowledgeable. In some of previous posts I ws able to answer some of ur questions. I think I might just have a little time 4 all u nairaland atheists 2nite.

lol.....you want to be denunked?

Kay 17: 1. God is a necessary being

2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

4. Causes can be Natural.

5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

If he isn't necessary that would mean he (very) likely doesn't exist, not that he necessarily doesn't exist, no? That he's surplus to requirements (by quite some way imo, so much so it's illogical to assume he exists), but not definitely so. Unless I'm missing something, of course.

thehomer:

Did you spot a flaw?

You didn't?