I think you put the comma in the wrong spot.

Reads kind of funny. Unless the ladies like it that way.

cametall

Croatia better beat Turkey. If the Turks actually go on to win this competition I don't know what I'll do. I'll probably kill myself.

Croatia, beat the Turkey...my life depends on it!

Here's another example of fancy word play.

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Devil-Itachi

But doesn't that argument contradict itself? How can a creator create something something when the said being does not exist? Something which is not in existence cannot be deemed possible of achieving anything.

Dude, don't go there. We could say exactly the same about you, it's just childish. You can come up with any theory you want but when it concers religion, you'll never be able to prove that your theory is correct.

BlackAlpha666

My response was childish yet his/her's wasn't? Care to elaborate. Never did I disregard what he said as a play on words.

Incorrect that's just fancy word play.Devil-Itachi

Atheists would say that as they have yet to come up with an argument against it. Although in your case I believe you just don't understand it.

Argument #1

• Premise #1. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself
• Premise #2. God shows evidence of design in himself
• Conclusion #1. Hence God requires a designer (another God) superior to himself

Argument #2:

• Premise #3. Infinite regressions are not possible
• Conclusion #1 implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of gods)
• Conclusion #2. Hence, Conclusion #1 is not possible, so no god can exist

Richard Dawkins writes about his attendance at a conference in Cambridge sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, where he challenged the theologians present to respond to the argument that a creator of a universe with such complexity would have to be complex and improbable.According to Dawkins, the strongest response was the objection that he was imposing a scientific epistemology on a question that lies beyond the realm of science. When theologians hold God to be simple, who is a scientist like Dawkins "to dictate to theologians that their God had to be complex?"Dawkins writes that he didn't get the impression that those employing this "evasive" defence were being wilfully dishonest, but were "defining themselves into an epistemological Safe Zone where rational argument could not reach them because they had declared by fiat that it could not."

Both Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne raise the objections that God is not complex. Swinburne gives two reasons why a God that controls every particle can be simple. First, he writes that a person is not the same as his brain, and he points to split-brain experiments that he has discussed in his previous work, thus he argues that a simple entity like our self can control our brain, which is a very complex thing. Second, he argues that simplicity is a quality that is intrinsic to a hypothesis, and not related to its empirical consequences

Plantinga cites Dawkins' definition from the The Blind Watchmaker that something is complex when it has parts that are arranged in a way that's unlikely to happen by chance. He argues that since God is a spirit and not a material object, He has no parts, and is simple by Dawkins' own definition. Dawkins is therefore assuming materialism, Plantinga argues, and since it immediately follows from materialism that God does not exist, he considers the argument to be question begging.

Sam_Lowery

The ontological argument (as argued by René Descartes)

1. It is impossible to conceive of any being greater (more perfect, having more or better qualities) than "God".

2. It is true that we have the idea of "God" (of the greatest or the most perfect being) in our minds.

3. By "greater" [from the definition given in(1)] we surely mean "exists in reality and in the mind" rather than just "exists in the mind alone" (something that exists only in the mind can't be said to be greater than something that exists bothin the mind and reality, can't it?).

4. Given the truth of (1) and (2), it follows that we must have the idea in our minds of some being about whom we can say: "it is impossible to conceive of anything greater".

5. Given the truth of (3), it follows that it is impossible to conceive of the greatest and most perfect being as existing only in the mind.

6. Therefore, the greatest and most perfect being must exist in reality as well as in the mind.

7. Therefore "God" exists.

Easy. People created god. C_Town_Soul

Just like people crated the big bang theory.

nothing created the big bang. From what I understand, it was a point of singularity that contained all the mass of the universe that eventually collapsed unto itself and then rapidly expanded--which was space.C_Town_Soul

So how come it's fine for God to require a creation but not for the big bang?

I don't hate them but don't go out of my way to listen to em.walton13

That