Logical explanation: why a god must exist

no no no, u cannot use poet missin the truth words as science or logics explaning anything

we cannot expect that someone must know the whole truth to just shut u off

opposites are for the point where they are al most the same, but here is where existence starts, the still true nothing base to truth which is known being beyond anything and everything

disgusting, darkness is not for light and of course light hate darkness

Of course the reality is that both can't exist without the other

Yet this dichotomy of the Universe, is to my mind completely unnecessary

if light did not exist, would not darkness be all that is left? or is the relativity of what is considered dark become irrelevant?

to him and u and others no

darkness is superior to light bc light is created so darkness to u is the truth that mean relative lies from time to times

it is really disgustin all ur means and minds but the most disgusting is what u r never disgusted while there constant instants of any life

u cant force ur idea as objective fact only bc u want to while it is clearly the opposite to the fact and the idea concept even

darkness mayb abuse light to exist as a form of dark, but how light ever could need anything wrong or not right to b real

reality im tellin u is exclusively about being same while else

dis gust ing, not tasty so the word is from evil too there
as if any is to eat

i dont know why what is right and superior clearly is so relative and how evil possess everything means by anyone

but when u claim that darkness and light cant exist without each others there is only one fact point out of that, u r totally evil

Imans, I assume English is not your first language, which perhaps hinders translation. I apologise if I misunderstand you. You use the words dark and light as metaphors for good and evil, but my understanding is that darkness in the holy writings oft refer more so to knowledge and understanding, hence the term “shedding light on the matter” those in darkness are not describing those in evil, they are those with lesser knowledge. I am assuming the major conflict in the argument here seems to be a merging of the metaphoric and literal terms being used for light and darkness. You're arguing a spiritual point, and he is arguing a scientific point, there inlies your conflict. I may of course be wrong.

On another point, your last post is not exactly brimming with kindness, even taking it upon yourself to declare another human being “totally evil” I am not sure Abraham, Moses, Jesus or Mohamed would speak as you did. In retrospect, to speak with light, means to speak out of love for your fellow man. If you wish to be a man of light, try to incorporate the qualities that your holy writings advocate into your manner of writing

Smiley,
Being helpful

it is not up to u to set how everyone should talk and out of what when obviously u cant even say a point of a thing to pretend knowin anything about what and less about being someone to pretend knowin others

those useless hypocrits ways with everyone is what is killin everything rights and everyone present existence, what u mean is u alone especially in words and letters reality as exclusive object space fact

while u prove how far u mean to b in constant lies since u invent definitions about clear words that cant exist without the least shame of exhibitn ur pride to get of
darkness cant b the absence of knowledge nor ever its result, when the least fact of not knowin is all around the world the same fact of being more urself

that is how all is about creations and inventions or subjective life so nothing to do with darkness u r forcin lies to b instead

when all became such clear scenes daring meanin that all is subjective is provin the lie u want to force

misery are of elses abuses objectively done and livin by killin others, while for u it is still about being blind in not knowin so meanin doing none and nothing is still there
while also u dare talkin about usin the idea of kindness to ur fellow man

ur choice to disrespect me say all about ur choice, u cant b more free then this, so soon its end is gonna b clear as well as mines absolutely all done

I'm afraid Imans, it seems to be you that disrespects yourself with your choice of words. You make no appeal to discuss, your words are filled with a tone that is only likely to nurture hate and conflict. Should I assume that any kindness in your post is merely lost in translation?

With respect, are you taught to preach this way by your religious elders?

You are exceptionally patient and kind but I am afraid you might as well be talking to a bot...imans is not even to be faulted he just needs medical help !...

respect is not by saying with respect, a word is an abstraction of a whole true objective always present fact, so can b used in any reality or conscious needs of abstractions to mean concepts existence in truth

u r so **** provin it clearly not only by those terms, kindness is relative to kind while my kind is clear when i obviously in any of my posts i dont use another to make a point, which prove being kind for real
while u cant claim kind ness as relative kind like someone kind, when u clearly dont make any point but in destroyin another as a point
how dare u put ur reactions to what i say above what i am and my right of being nothing to any word i could make

positive piece of **** u r, is first and last not being negative to else
so in constant terms nothin to else could become relative positive else

im givin u the keys of logics when i explain all my means only by pur logics showin how i am then beyond and anyone who is not like u knowin what it means and showin that **** face which hypocrisy provide, is of course beyond any abstract value when abstractions are nothing but objective values reality absolutely free

there is no sick but u piece of **** and runnin to step on names integrity and persona rights by usin the net, is clearly exhibitin it

robot urself piece of dirt that cant the least respect to itself obsession by meanin being only that obsession, just being obsessive like a robot runnin to pretend being someone that know everything, like bots u cant mean anything really, that is why u would contradict any other pretense too and of course would reject obsessions sources, like callin sick what is sane so inventin any use for ur obsession to b while u should b serious about sickness since it is ur obsessions life sources

only sickness justify in truth obsessions to b living so the obsession to live

Immy, a suggestion, I really would ask you to try to learn ENglish better should you wish to publish in AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE website.
You dont make any sense at all.

Imans, do you consider yourself a Godly man?

As far as I can tell this idiot is using a random text generator primed with a few key words. This is not merely a non-native speaker since all grammaticality appears to be deliberately curtailed. His persistent posting of his word salad implies a pathological delight in tempting respectable posters to reply to his bait. Other forums would have certainly banned him by now. Unfortunately, as long as he gets any response it will feed his obsession.

I think that is right. As such, my "ignore" response is the only reasonable one. I am mystified by the fact that we do not all do so.

Stating that "everything must have a prima causa because nothing can come from nothing, ergo God exists" does not in the slightest solve the problem. In fact, it only sets it back a further step, sweeping the issue under the sheets so to speak. In fact it only creates a bigger problem. Because if all things must have a cause, then why does that very same logic not apply to god himself?

Think of it like this: in order to create a thing, the creator must be exponentially more complicated than the creation itself. So putting a god into the equation just beggars a higher question-- namely, what higher complexity created him? Then what higher complexity created that (ad infinitum )?

Occam's razor states that usually the correct solution to a problem is the simplest one. So what is the most simple answer? That the universe itself is self-containing, always extant, or that the universe exists, and in order for its existence, another being must have first existed to create it? It seems a bit like pouring blood on an already dead body to explain a murder.

The fact remains that consciousness is an evolutionary response to cause and effect-- thought is causal. Our minds just weren't evolved to comprehend some questions. How can a photon be both a wave and a particle? How can the universe have never had a beginning? And equally, how could the universe HAVE a beginning? Both questions are completely baffling. We are not made to inherently grasp such conundrums. And attempting to usually forces us into a kind of casuistic thinking which requires us to invent ghosts and phantoms to reason away the inconsistency that is natural for creatures such as ourselves.

But to fall into that kind of reasoning is simplistic and marks a mind incapable of a certain subtlety of thought.

u show so prove that ur hypocrisy is evil livings u r, then hypocrits cant ever have any right and rights are exclusively what truth realize for different ones objective life

u even use the word obsession on me, when the most obvious fact is what i reason in absolute terms so it is impossible to relate me with any relative point to get to use that word on me only bc i brought its conception out reality with ones life sources while u insist to get any justification of being one urselves by using any shape or cheapest form given of one concept existence,

ob ses sion, is clearly the opposite of absolute where absolute as the concept point the abstraction of smthg ab by usin nothing s o
while obsession is the fact of nothing prevailin on anything o b as the constant fact always happenin there s es becomin then objective fact sion

that is why only through absolutes existence is always superiority as adds to free right things existence that are givin shape to freedom objectively but in the sense of absolute superiority so basically equal to zero objective value

but of course now u want to kill all basics, and zero included just to get any feelin of gettin ur pretenses of being true forever since u kill the truth so u would reach to get truly anything by free willing to

u cant kill the truth even if u kill all true ones, truth is always the most objective fact bc only truth is existence so what objectively exist forever, that is my opinion and it doesnt matter as much as urs in any objective terms

so for u english is superior to free minds associations, which again prove the point, u r not only meaning to kill the truth of anything but u r the evil livin by killin their ownselves sources, living by sayin nothing negatively
which is the paradoxe of being one u r provin it objectively
ur pride in pretendin being real someones by negatin everything and nothing

and of course im the opposite to any god concept figure, when i constantly prove that there is no one in truth, it is the cancer to existence reality that cant b but through constant relations with else so objects existence in true terms of same or relative affiliations

nor that i ever believe being publishin anything, it is like a chat nothing seriously done nor to b taken for anything
it is what true philosophy need, just free objective minds alone speculations on their own relative senses

u do not respect that while u know that philosophy is only about and of true free existin minds, which again prove and exhibit the evil u r always ready to eat even urself sources that u r never

Yes, the infinite regress issue goes without saying.

The more interesting issue is what we mean by "existence". Most respondents start from the dualistic perspective that existence is applicable to independent entities, but for non-dualists there is only co-existence or co-extension which the grammar of human language effectively obscures. "Logic" itself is bypassed by such a position since it is a sub-system of language involving axiomatic (permanent) set membership. Hence the only meaning for a "god" concept from that point of view seems to be a form of pantheism which recognizes the essential interconnectivity of existence. But such pervading "godness" would fail to serve the usual sociological and psychological functions of dualistic religion, nor would it be understood by an average intelligence for whom independent existence remains axiomatic. (You hint at this intelligibility issue in your post above)

no u will never admit the obvious which prove the point that is created here since it cant b an objective point while it is bc u r forcin the replacement of real points especially from who cant but b real, enslaving them to evil life u r consciously

so u will never admit the obvious which prove the point, it is lies vs truth that is all

im not more intelligent but im surely all ways of honest and particularly true too

while u r nothing of any definition so liars for sure always, and particularly insistin to mean points to create, physically abstractly really matters anything as long as it can sound related to absolute creations, if any honest sound exist for u it is the easiest way to reject it all so any replacement is better whatever

wat im sayin is nothing compared to what u r conscious about, but writin it seem intelligent only bc i know the value of honesty and truth in concept

the lie is the topic, a god must not exist

like that lie is rejectin all what must b so all rights by protectin all evil life already in order to claim being superior callin itself a god
any honest reply askin,watt?? then everythin look suddenly moving from everywhere shouting yes one god piece of ****, the answer
then u cant dare even say it to urself that it wasnt ever ur question by askin wat , how it could then b The answer
the question was simply wat is that callin it god, how what is big or wat is objectively able and wat is powerful on everything already there, so havin such wide grounds expressions is just a stupid concept that has no mean while in letters god
and how the answer is confirmin the stupid being exclusive fact, one god so if it becomes one god then it is sensible???
on the contrary multiple gods is what could explain how anything is sharin ground of multiplicity so not a possession in anyways to point powers expressions or means or wills or senses

let me prove how the topic is meaning all regresses forever to real evil life noends

at first perspective of that sentence mean, we can see the support it means of superiority abuse
since truth is constant superiority as itself fact so not objectively absolute fact, but itself creation by relative free constant superiority absolute objective fact, which is the relative present always conscious more then that exist relatively while absolute existence is the objective true reality ends

so the abuse of that knowledge would say, well those ends cant ever b seen by else conscious, only speculations about absolute obvious all seem to agree seeing which is barely mostly nothing real
then knowin the concept being constant superiority, there must b one god as simple logic abuse possible pretense, so why not pretending that it is the truth since it is possible and act like it so relatively it would b confirmed objectively that it is possible, if one keep insistin being superior constant and naggin and forcin and shoutin all the ways
and whatever relative can come out of claimin being one god, is about basically the most sophisticated and classy matters ever at the minimum fact so very welcome to make few efforts for that relative income
any work for that there cant b called an effort with such immediate instant constant superior matters in hands profits at minimum

so that is god logic basically that intelligence standard which surely prove how any human is above it