Does God Exist?

[Menassa]

One thing I didn't get about the Judeo-Christian God and Satan. Satan was an angel, and angels are supposed to have no free will. If Satan had no free will, how was he able to rebel? And how did one-third of the angels join him?

One third of the host of heaven joined him? Is that the Judeo God?

Satan rebelled? Is that the Judeo God?

[The Basement of Your Mom]

(OA1) It’s possible that an all-surpassingly great being exists (i.e. a being greater than which nothing can be conceived). In other words, an all-surpassingly great being exists in some possible world.

(OA2) If an all-surpassingly great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

(OA3) If an all-surpassingly great being in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (since the actual world is clearly a possible world).

(OA4) If an all-surpassingly great being exists in the actual world, then an all-surpassingly great being actually exists.

Right off the bat premise 2 is absurd.

[Frisivisia]

Please prove there is a hell. Please prove something from your religion is true and you shall get a cookie. Please, evidence please.

....The Bible.

That's some awfully circular logic.

[The New Lowlands]

Please prove there is a hell. Please prove something from your religion is true and you shall get a cookie. Please, evidence please.

....The Bible.

The Bible is evidence like Red Riding Hood is evidence for sapient, talking wolves.

[Sociobiology]

which means nothingness cannot exist and the universe cannot have a beginning, otherwise nothing not even gods could exist. Which is how it is painfully easy to tell you are misunderstanding.

the actual principle is, "the net energy of a closed system constant."
otherwise written as
"the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time"


wrong, we make and destroy matter all the time. that's what powers the sun and every nuclear reactor.






wrong, read some physic not written by a grade school teacher.


Nope that would violate the laws as you written them as well.


yes see them, because you have not quoted them yet.

1. God would have existed outside of the laws of the universe before creating them.

then god does not exist, the universe is literally everything that exists.

2. Jesus, okay Wikipedia to your rescue. The law of conservation of energy, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means energy is localized and can change its location within the system, and it can change form within the system, for instance, chemical energy can become kinetic energy but it can be neither created nor destroyed.

exactly, matter can be turned into energy and vice verse, energy can be created from nothing as long as an equal amount of negative energy is generated, see virtual particles and negative energy.
In both circumstances matter and energy are created but the NET energy does not change.
Please please actually read the whole article before you quote it because it even describes this in detail.

3. No Fission and Fusion does not destroy matter, It Changes matter.

wrong
the mass of the parent atom and the daughter atoms are not equal, wiki nuclear reactions while you are at it.

4. As I said, the outside force who wrote the laws,

there is no "outside"
describe how before time exists works? In the time before time?

[Matta]

As one of Jehovah's Witness I do not believe in hell because Jehovah is a loving god and would not make people suffer eternally.

[Pandeeria]

Please prove there is a hell. Please prove something from your religion is true and you shall get a cookie. Please, evidence please.

....The Bible.

What about other religious books? That's like saying Harry potter is real.

[Miencraft]

Please prove there is a hell. Please prove something from your religion is true and you shall get a cookie. Please, evidence please.

....The Bible.

Alrighty then, now all you've got to do is prove that that's true.

[Anachronous Rex]

So here's a question: Why didn't god kill him?

He certainly killed enough other people that we know he doesn't have a problem with it.

He had prove his sovereignty because Satan said that the human race only followed him for their own well being. So he is proving right now that what Satan is saying is not true.

So evil exists because, even though he is omniscient, he needed to see the outcome of a bet he made with a sadist who he lets screw with people.

That must have sounded better in your head.

[Bundesdeutschland]

Isiah!! Isaiah 14:12-22 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.

Ezekiel! Ezekiel 28:12-19 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

Your first quote is not only a mistranslation but in Isaiah 14:4 it says it's talking about the King of Babylon.

Your second quote... I don't know why you did this but let me out line it for you.
"Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus,"

You should have pulled a Paul and only quoted the latter half of the verse.

No. Don't distort it. It wasn't a mistranslation. It was directly talking about Lucifer right there. That's the most open part about Lucifer there is in the Old Testament, let alone the Bible from what I've read.

[Sociobiology]

(OA1) It’s possible that an all-surpassingly great being exists (i.e. a being greater than which nothing can be conceived). In other words, an all-surpassingly great being exists in some possible world.

(OA2) If an all-surpassingly great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. No.

(OA3) If an all-surpassingly great being in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (since the actual world is clearly a possible world).

(OA4) If an all-surpassingly great being exists in the actual world, then an all-surpassingly great being actually exists.

In the words of a spartan, "IF"

[The New Lowlands]

Query;

Why bother?

Because while his existence is not dependent on you, your existence is dependent on him.

It is he who has the righteous authority to Judge the World, and no other.

No, I'm talking about God's perspective.

Why are all you Christians so arrogant that you assume that if God exists, he gives a rat's ass about us in the unfashionable western spiral arm of this insignificant galaxy which is but a speck of a microcosm of the clusters of superclusters of galaxies that fill part of our universe?

[Bundesdeutschland]

One thing I didn't get about the Judeo-Christian God and Satan. Satan was an angel, and angels are supposed to have no free will. If Satan had no free will, how was he able to rebel? And how did one-third of the angels join him?

One third of the host of heaven joined him? Is that the Judeo God?

Satan rebelled? Is that the Judeo God?

Then tell me where Satan came from then.

[The Grey Wolf]

One thing I didn't get about the Judeo-Christian God and Satan. Satan was an angel, and angels are supposed to have no free will. If Satan had no free will, how was he able to rebel? And how did one-third of the angels join him?

One third of the host of heaven joined him? Is that the Judeo God?

Satan rebelled? Is that the Judeo God?

Same God. Would you prefer Judeo-Christian-Muslim?

[Condunum]

As one of Jehovah's Witness I do not believe in hell because Jehovah is a loving god and would not make people suffer eternally.

I do not believe god rightly cares either way, nor has any plans for us. The belief that he does is one of the most selfish beliefs in existence.

[Angle Empire]

(OA1) It’s possible that an all-surpassingly great being exists (i.e. a being greater than which nothing can be conceived). In other words, an all-surpassingly great being exists in some possible world.

(OA2) If an all-surpassingly great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. No.

(OA3) If an all-surpassingly great being in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (since the actual world is clearly a possible world).

(OA4) If an all-surpassingly great being exists in the actual world, then an all-surpassingly great being actually exists.

It is greater to exist than to not exist, so they greatest conceivable being would necessarily exist, if it did not exist in some possible world then that would be an example of it not existing, and therefore it would be found lacking (since its better to exist than to not exist) and the supreme being cannot be supreme if it is found to be lacking.

[Matta]

He had prove his sovereignty because Satan said that the human race only followed him for their own well being. So he is proving right now that what Satan is saying is not true.

So evil exists because, even though he is omniscient, he needed to see the outcome of a bet he made with a sadist who he lets screw with people.

That must have sounded better in your head.

No he is proving right now so no other being in the future after he proves his sovereignty will question him.

[The Basement of Your Mom]

wrong
the mass of the parent atom and the daughter atoms are not equal, wiki nuclear reactions while you are at it.

But in the c.o.m. frame of reference, the mass of the whole system is equal before and after the reaction. If the total number and species of particles is the same, he could make the argument that no matter is destroyed and be technically correct, depending on how he defines the term.

[Pandeeria]

Orson you haven't earned that cookie yet. Please provide other "evidence" or tell how the bible is in any sense factual evidence.

[The Orson Empire]

....The Bible.

Alrighty then, now all you've got to do is prove that that's true.

It is true.

[The New Lowlands]

It is greater to exist than to not exist, so they greatest conceivable being would necessarily exist, if it did not exist in some possible world then that would be an example of it not existing, and therefore it would be found lacking (since its better to exist than to not exist) and the supreme being cannot be supreme if it is found to be lacking.

So in other words, God exists because it's better if he does?

Yeah, no.

[Bundesdeutschland]

Because while his existence is not dependent on you, your existence is dependent on him.

It is he who has the righteous authority to Judge the World, and no other.

No, I'm talking about God's perspective.

Why are all you Christians so arrogant that you assume that if God exists, he gives a rat's ass about us in the unfashionable western spiral arm of this insignificant galaxy which is but a speck of a microcosm of the clusters of superclusters of galaxies that fill part of our universe?

WHY DID GOD CREATE THEN???? If you haven't noticed, God loves us! Read the Bible and see! If you don't like it, then leave!

[The Basement of Your Mom]

It is greater to exist than to not exist, so they greatest conceivable being would necessarily exist, if it did not exist in some possible world then that would be an example of it not existing, and therefore it would be found lacking (since its better to exist than to not exist) and the supreme being cannot be supreme if it is found to be lacking.

Existence is not a predicate. Kant destroyed the ontological argument approx 300 years ago. Why are apologists still using it?

[The Grey Wolf]

In the words of a spartan, "IF"

One of the few (if not only) countries that gave Alexander the Great the middle finger and lived.

[The New Lowlands]

Alrighty then, now all you've got to do is prove that that's true.

It is true.

Proof;
/pro͞of/
Noun
Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.