>>809999>>809837 was arguing that shifting the un-caused cause to a complex, supernatural deity for which there is no evidence is not solving the issue when the un-caused cause or what have you could be simply left before the "god" at the universe or hyperspace, etc., that might precede the universe (or its current shape, form, etc.). Then you start with random ramblings such as "transcendental minds" which are unproven, and logical absolutes. By the way, your proposed paradox isn't even paradoxical. Something can exist and not exist at the same time.For example, the first definition under
Dictionary.com states "exist" as: "to have actual being; be."
A rock has actual being, but the second definition is: "to have life or animation; live."
A rock does not have life and is not alive. Therefore, the rock both exists, and does not exist. Funny how language works, isn't it? It's almost as though it's not quite absolute ...
Regardless, you might go the route of saying: well, 1+1= 2, which is an absolute. It doesn't matter because these mathematical absolutes do not in any way conceivably lead to the existence of a god. If you think it does, show me how. I'm willing to hear you out. His argument makes sense; yours is just an assertion that absolutes lead to a deity when absolutes existing could simply just mean that absolutes exist. And you can't use circular reason suggesting that: god makes absolutes, absolutes exist, therefore god exists, because then I'll just say that Bumbo the Pinecone Placing Dragon makes pinecones, pinecones exist, therefore Bumbo exists. In short, you can't "think" things into existence. You can philosophize forever, but you'll never manifest something into reality by thinking that it exists really hard; you have to actually demonstrate its existence, otherwise it is indistinguishable from imagination.
