Just For Fun: How to drive punchy blokes up the wall

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