Chris: Nothing exists or God exists.
Chris: Something exists.
Chris: Therefore God exists.
Anon: Sorry, Chris?
Anonymous: chris, isn’t that logic a bit…….. flawed
Chris: What’s flawed about it?
Anonymous: If something exists God must exist?
Anonymous: this stems from “why is there something rather then nothing?”
Chris: No.
Chris: Where is that in what I wrote?
Anonymous: it sounds similiar, i apologize if I put words in your moutn.
Chris: Nothing to apologize for.
Anonymous: anyways, why would something existing necessitate the existence of God?
Chris: Because of the truth of the first premise.
Chris: Something = Not-Nothing
Anonymous: ok..
Anonymous: Care to elaborate?
Chris: Well I mean, it’s in the proof.
Anon: Chris, even though there is something, it doesn’t mean it had to be created by God
Chris: I didn’t say that.
Anon: I know, I’m just pointing that out.
Anonymous: nothing exists or God exists?
Chris: Right.
Anonymous: why would this be a necessity to the existence of something?
Chris: A v B
Chris: ~A
Chris: Therefore, B
Anonymous: connect the dots if you would.
Chris: Not sure what part you are having trouble with.
Anonymous: I don’t get how in the world something existing would have to indicate the existence of God.
Chris: Because of the first premise.
Anonymous: how do you know the first premise is correct?
Chris: It is true that either nothing exists or God exists.
Anon: God as in Yahweh, or a god?
Anonymous: thats not true……
Chris: Well, I believe God exists.
Chris: As in Yahweh.
Chris: What’s not true?
Anon: OK
Chris: That nothing exists?
Chris: I agree.
Anonymous: either nothing exists, or God exists
Anonymous: this is a flawed first premise
Chris: What’s not true about it?
Anonymous: God isn’t a REQUIRED explanation of existence.
Chris: I didn’t say He was.
Anon: But you’re saying nothing exists or God exists
Chris: Right.
Anon: That would indicate you think that God is necessary for existance
Chris: Not at all.
Anon: Then I’m confused
Anonymous: then why is “God exists” the second part of the first premise
Chris: Here, let me show you.
Chris: Nothing exists or spam exists.
Chris: Something exists.
Chris: Therefore, spam exists.
Chris: Valid and true.
Chris: Thus sound.
Anon: what?
Chris: Ergo spam exists.
Anon: What if something existed and spam didn’t exist?
Anonymous: Chris.. *facepalm*
Chris: ?
Chris: How could something exist and spam not exist?
Chris: The first premise is true.
Chris: Isn’t it?
Anon: Yes
Anon: Of course
Chris: Okay.
Anon: But spam doesn’t necessarily have to exist
Chris: Didn’t say it did.
Anon: But you just said…
Chris: But you accept the first premise right?
Anon: ugh
Anonymous: If God is not a necessary thing to explaint eh existence of the universe then the premise would be “Nothing exists or X,Y,Z exists”
Chris: Not at all.
Anon: Yes I do Chris
Chris: Spam is not a necessary thing to explain the universe.
Anon: ….
Chris: Right?
Anonymous: this is stupid dude.
Chris: I mean, let’s hope not.
Anonymous: its like saying
Chris: Stupid?
Anon: Hold on, back up
Chris: Why is it stupid?
Anonymous: Either nothing exists, or unicorns exists.
Anonymous: something exists
Anon: You said “something exists, therefor spam exists”
Anonymous: therefore, unicorns exist.
Chris: But that’s not true.
Anon: And I said that something can exist, but spam DOESN’T have to exist
Chris: Would you agree?
Chris: But it does if you follow the proof Anon.
Chris: And you do.
Chris: Right?
Anonymous: explain why it is any different from your first argument.
Chris: Because unicorns don’t exist Anonymous. Silly. 🙂
Anon: oh man
Leave a Reply