Does the (Christian) God Exist?

[With Teeth]

I would say that's not even a logically possible being.

Ba'al Gat'yter is as logical as God.

There is no logical state of affairs where a being causes a non-contingent being to be contingent.Your hypothetical being is therefore impossible, so it's impossible for it to destroy god as well.

[Conscentia]

Ba'al Gat'yter is as logical as God.

There is no logical state of affairs where a being causes a non-contingent being to be contingent.Your hypothetical being is therefore impossible, so it's impossible for it to destroy god as well.

How does Ba'al Gat'yter cause a non-contingent being to become contingent?

[With Teeth]

There is no logical state of affairs where a being causes a non-contingent being to be contingent.Your hypothetical being is therefore impossible, so it's impossible for it to destroy god as well.

How does Ba'al Gat'yter cause a non-contingent being to become contingent?

By destroying it, obviously.

[Conscentia]

How does Ba'al Gat'yter cause a non-contingent being to become contingent?

By destroying it, obviously.

I'm not sure what you mean by "causes a non-contingent being to be contingent", or how destroying does that.

[With Teeth]

By destroying it, obviously.

I'm not sure what you mean by "causes a non-contingent being to be contingent", or how destroying does that.

It analytically belongs to the concept of god that it exists non-contingently. In other words, it is analytically true that it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence. Yet, if such a being were to exist, then god's existence would depend on something else. This entails that god is contingent. The situation you are proposing is therefore logically contradictory, because it requires the contingency of a being who is analytically non-contingent.

[Beiluxia]

The Christian God is, by principle and tenet, omnipotent. He is all-knowing and all-powerful. If both God and this Ba'al Gat'yter exists, this thing, or anything else in existence in this universe, cannot destroy him according to Christian beliefs. Yet, you insist he can, making this a fallacy. An all-powerful God + an all-destroying entity = not logical in our universe. [...]

Exactly - therefore neither exists.

Not exactly. The logic behind your argument is flawed; just because this entity doesn't exist in a world with God doesn't prove God Himself doesn't exist.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not sure what you mean by "causes a non-contingent being to be contingent", or how destroying does that.

It analytically belongs to the concept of god that it exists non-contingently. In other words, it is analytically true that it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence. Yet, if such a being were to exist, then god's existence would depend on something else. This entails that god is contingent.

False assertion underlined.

[With Teeth]

It analytically belongs to the concept of god that it exists non-contingently. In other words, it is analytically true that it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence. Yet, if such a being were to exist, then god's existence would depend on something else. This entails that god is contingent.

False assertion underlined.

How is this a false statement? God's existence would depend on whether or not blalbalblablalb wants to destroy him or not.

[Grave_n_idle]

Exactly - therefore neither exists.

Not exactly. The logic behind your argument is flawed; just because this entity doesn't exist in a world with God doesn't prove God Himself doesn't exist.

You're misunderstanding the logic.

If you can make claims about the properties of 'god', and claim that failing to provide compelling material evidence to refute those claims is somehow evidence that they were true, and that that 'god' must therefore exist...

Then the same claim can be made for the god-eater, and the same logic applies.

If you cannot refute the existence of the god-eater, and IF your logic is consistent - then either the god-eater must exist (in which case god doesn't exist, because it has been eaten), or the god-eater doesn't exist (and the same logic can be used as an argument against the existence of the god).

It shows the fallacious 'logic' that is used to support the argument for a 'god'.

[Conscentia]

Exactly - therefore neither exists.

Not exactly. The logic behind your argument is flawed; just because this entity doesn't exist in a world with God doesn't prove God Himself doesn't exist.

No. It's not the non-existence of Ba'al that proves that God does not exist. The proof used to demonstrate that God does not exist could be re-applied to God, as they are both equally valid in terms of faith.

[Grave_n_idle]

False assertion underlined.

How is this a false statement? God's existence would depend on whether or not blalbalblablalb wants to destroy him or not.

In such a scenario, 'god' would not exist- so the idea that it's existence would be 'contingent' is nonsensical.

You're attributing properties arbitrarily, and circularly. It's obvious you see the logical hole, and are trying desperately to patch it with a sort of theological get-out-of-jail-free card.

[With Teeth]

Not exactly. The logic behind your argument is flawed; just because this entity doesn't exist in a world with God doesn't prove God Himself doesn't exist.

You're misunderstanding the logic.

If you can make claims about the properties of 'god', and claim that failing to provide compelling material evidence to refute those claims is somehow evidence that they were true, and that that 'god' must therefore exist...

Then the same claim can be made for the god-eater, and the same logic applies.

If you cannot refute the existence of the god-eater, and IF your logic is consistent - then either the god-eater must exist (in which case god doesn't exist, because it has been eaten), or the god-eater doesn't exist (and the same logic can be used as an argument against the existence of the god).

It shows the fallacious 'logic' that is used to support the argument for a 'god'.

I didn't see anywhere in your post which relates to the falsity of my prior statement. I also don't see any parts which relate to the argument I presented. I haven't claimed that any lack of material evidence to refute my claims about god is evidence that they are true. I have no idea where you got this from. The only property I claimed god to have was an analytical statement, and analytical statements are true by definition.

A god-eater is logically impossible because there is no possible world where a necessary being is contingent. That's analytically true, and there's no way of getting around it.

[Grave_n_idle]

I didn't see anywhere in your post which relates to the falsity of my prior statement.

You're attributing properties to an entity that - in that case - would not exist.

The properties, therefore, are irrelevant. Attributing them is a dishonest trick.

[With Teeth]

In such a scenario, 'god' would not exist- so the idea that it's existence would be 'contingent' is nonsensical.

Even if I granted this, it's analytically impossible for a necessary being to be eaten by another being.

You're attributing properties arbitrarily, and circularly. It's obvious you see the logical hole, and are trying desperately to patch it with a sort of theological get-out-of-jail-free card.

You're talking to an atheist, so you can post your cliche New-Atheist comments somewhere else if you don't want to waste your time.

[Beiluxia]

Not exactly. The logic behind your argument is flawed; just because this entity doesn't exist in a world with God doesn't prove God Himself doesn't exist.

You're misunderstanding the logic.

If you can make claims about the properties of 'god', and claim that failing to provide compelling material evidence to refute those claims is somehow evidence that they were true, and that that 'god' must therefore exist...

Then the same claim can be made for the god-eater, and the same logic applies.

If you cannot refute the existence of the god-eater, and IF your logic is consistent - then either the god-eater must exist (in which case god doesn't exist, because it has been eaten), or the god-eater doesn't exist (and the same logic can be used as an argument against the existence of the god).

It shows the fallacious 'logic' that is used to support the argument for a 'god'.

I understand that this is someone similar to Russell's teapot. However, it's a very poor substitute for it, as it creates a fallacy in which an all-powerful being (God) is destroyed by another entity, which in itself makes no logical sense. Russell's teapot, on the other hand, makes no such claims. Again, I use the unmovable force meets unstoppable force example; the very impact of a force that cannot be stopped on a force that cannot be moved is simply not logical in our universe. Likewise, the moment this entity "eats" God will never occur, because Christianity stipulates that God cannot be destroyed. This entity not existing = God not existing is like saying unmovable force not existing = unstoppable force not existing, neither of which is necessarily true. Just because such a causation between these two opposing forces cannot be possible does not mean that both are automatically proven non-existent at the same time.

[Conscentia]

[...] A god-eater is logically impossible because there is no possible world where a necessary being is contingent. [...]

Alternatively, God is not a necessary being.

[Grave_n_idle]

In such a scenario, 'god' would not exist- so the idea that it's existence would be 'contingent' is nonsensical.

Even if I granted this, it's analytically impossible for a necessary being to be eaten by another being.

Which is irrelevant, because the property of 'contingency' that you're claiming is a property you are claiming is definitive to an entity that can only be argued to exist with that property in the specific scenario that your assertion is accepted as true.

Your assertion is invalid. You're arguing for the assumption that the entity be ASSUMED to be non-contingent, based on the assumption that it IS non-contingent. It's obviously circular and illogical - and I really wonder who you think is being taken in by such an obvious flimflam.

You're attributing properties arbitrarily, and circularly. It's obvious you see the logical hole, and are trying desperately to patch it with a sort of theological get-out-of-jail-free card.

You're talking to an atheist, so you can post your cliche New-Atheist comments somewhere else if you don't want to waste your time.

Which part do you think was 'cliche'? Would me linking to a dictionary be helpful?

[With Teeth]

[...] A god-eater is logically impossible because there is no possible world where a necessary being is contingent. [...]

Alternatively, God is not a necessary being.

If this is the proper response, then the argument doesn't prove anything. I can choose the theistic modal axiom that " A god-eater is logically impossible because there is no possible world where a necessary being is contingent" or the atheistic modal axiom that "A necessary being is impossible because of a god-eater". Neither one is particularly correct or wrong, so it doesn't establish theism, atheism, or any other conclusion (other than revealing the flaws with any modal argument in general).

[Grave_n_idle]

I understand that this is someone similar to Russell's teapot. However, it's a very poor substitute for it,

Actually, it's more like a step on from the teapot - and the reason you think it's a poor substitute appears to be that you've failed to grasp that, and are thinking it's the same argument.

It isn't.

...as it creates a fallacy in which an all-powerful being (God) is destroyed by another entity, which in itself makes no logical sense.

You're right - an all-powerful being makes no logical sense.

Russell's teapot, on the other hand, makes no such claims. Again, I use the unmovable force meets unstoppable force example; the very impact of a force that cannot be stopped on a force that cannot be moved is simply not logical in our universe. Likewise, the moment this entity "eats" God will never occur, because Christianity stipulates that God cannot be destroyed. This entity not existing = God not existing is like saying unmovable force not existing = unstoppable force not existing, neither of which is necessarily true. Just because such a causation between these two opposing forces cannot be possible does not mean that both are automatically proven non-existent at the same time.

...and there's the evidence that you didn't get it.

The argument ISN'T that the non-existence of the god eater proves the non-existence of the god.... or even vice-versa. The argument is that the same logic that DISMISSES the god-eater, can dismiss the god.

[New Connorstantinople]

Mother of God. I thought this would be bad, but...

[With Teeth]

Your assertion is invalid. You're arguing for the assumption that the entity be ASSUMED to be non-contingent, based on the assumption that it IS non-contingent. It's obviously circular and illogical

It belongs analytically to the concept of god that it's not contingent. It's not any more of an assumption than the assumption that all bachelors are unmarried.

Which part do you think was 'cliche'?

The phrase "get out of jail free card" You're a better writer than that.

[With Teeth]

The argument ISN'T that the non-existence of the god eater proves the non-existence of the god.... or even vice-versa. The argument is that the same logic that DISMISSES the god-eater, can dismiss the god.

Ok, I think I know what happened here. Conscentia's original argument was that the god-eater argument proves that god cannot exist (see below). My whole contention has been showing that it doesn't prove anything because one can just assume certain modal axioms, neither of which are better than the other, one of which is theistic, and the other one being atheistic. I think you've been going for the weaker claim that the argument simply shows modal arguments for god to be unsupported. If that's the claim, then I agree. I've been trying to construct an argument against the former rather than the latter. So, I guess we can hug now?

Not entirely sure what point you're trying to make. From my understanding, you're trying to argue two points: [...]

You've misunderstood.
My argument is that God & Ba'al Gat'yter are both unproven entities. The existence of Ba'al Gat'yter makes God's exist impossible (because Ba'al Gat'yter destroys gods). And argument that would disprove the existence of Ba'al Gat'yter would be equally applicable to God. Either way, God cannot exist.

Ba'al Gat'yter is not a god.

[Conscentia]

[...] You're talking to an atheist, so you can post your cliche New-Atheist comments somewhere else if you don't want to waste your time.

Did you just add that to thy signature?

[Grave_n_idle]

Your assertion is invalid. You're arguing for the assumption that the entity be ASSUMED to be non-contingent, based on the assumption that it IS non-contingent. It's obviously circular and illogical

It belongs analytically to the concept of god that it's not contingent. It's not any more of an assumption than the assumption that all bachelors are unmarried.

What a nonsense. There's no need for a 'god' to be 'non-contingent'. That's a property you've decided MUST be attributed, arbitrarily and circularly.

Which part do you think was 'cliche'?

The phrase "get out of jail free card" You're a better writer than that.

Perhaps the problem is that I don't know what you mean by 'cliche New-Atheist comments'. I'm not sure who these 'New Atheists' are, or how one attributes their clichés.

[Conscentia]

The argument ISN'T that the non-existence of the god eater proves the non-existence of the god.... or even vice-versa. The argument is that the same logic that DISMISSES the god-eater, can dismiss the god.

Ok, I think I know what happened here. Conscentia's original argument was that the god-eater argument proves that god cannot exist (see below). My whole contention has been showing that it doesn't prove anything because one can just assume certain modal axioms, neither of which are better than the other, one of which is theistic, and the other one being atheistic. I think you've been going for the weaker claim that the argument simply shows modal arguments for god to be unsupported. If that's the claim, then I agree. I've been trying to construct an argument against the former rather than the latter. So, I guess we can hug now?

You've misunderstood.
My argument is that God & Ba'al Gat'yter are both unproven entities. The existence of Ba'al Gat'yter makes God's exist impossible (because Ba'al Gat'yter destroys gods). And argument that would disprove the existence of Ba'al Gat'yter would be equally applicable to God. Either way, God cannot exist.

Ba'al Gat'yter is not a god.

I was never that good at explaining things.