Great, another proof that God exists...

A priori deductive reasoning is reasoning true before any observations are made. Such reasoning starts from basic definition and deduces from it by law of identity and law of equation (A = B, B = C, A = C).

The law of identity is A=A, it is not A=B or B=C. The law of identity establishes a thing's self-consistency; your premises violate the law of identity by denying the self-consistency of both terms.

P1. Divine being which comes into existence out of nothing will come into existence out of nothing even if such divine being didnt exist before.

P2. If such divine being will come into existence out of nothing, such being exists

C. Divine being exists.

Now, there is not much to disagree with any of these premises. P1 is just basic law of identity.

No it isn't, P1 and P2 violate the law of identity.

Coming into existence out of nothing means "nothing --> something".

The law of identity also says "A" does not equal "not A", but you are saying nothing = something, which violates the law of identity.

P2 is likewise just basic law of identity.

Nope, not even close.

And C logically follows.

No, it doesn't.

Divine being which comes into existence out of nothing is possible, as there is no any logical obstacle to it.

That is just the assertion of a conclusion without justification, you postulate the existence of "nothing" which is logically incoherent.

But another problem for atheists is that any obstacle put in place to prevent "nothing --> something" can likewise have some possible being capable of overcoming that obstacle.

Another unfounded assertion, your argument is circular reasoning from illogical premises.

Other than all that, it's a good proof.

The problem with atheists , they are poor in math.

Angel: That real smart guy on DC is showing proof of your existence

God: Great! Ask him if I can move in with him when I get out on parole..

The law of identity is A=A, it is not A=B or B=C

Law of equation.

The law of identity also says "A" does not equal "not A", but you are saying nothing = something, which violates the law of identity.

Nothing can become something, just as "Not A" can become "A". this isnt same as saying "nothing is something". Law of identity and law of non-contradiction talk specifically of same time and same place. I can both "walk" and "not walk". Just not at same time.

Angel: God, why do you think you will be getting out on parole?

God: Hello, Hemorrhoid's! There are a lot of medications out now than can correct my poor design!

The Law of absolute bollocks says absolute bollocks is absolutely bollocks.

The law of identity is A=A, it is not A=B or B=C

Law of equation.

There is no such thing as the "Law of equation", you made it up.

The law of identity also says "A" does not equal "not A", but you are saying nothing = something, which violates the law of identity.

Nothing can become something, just as "Not A" can become "A". this isnt same as saying "nothing is something". Law of identity and law of non-contradiction talk specifically of same time and same place. I can both "walk" and "not walk". Just not at same time.

It is logically incoherent to assign a time and place to "nothing", if it is located in time and place it isn't "nothing".

There is no such thing as the "Law of equation", you made it up

Really?

It is logically incoherent to assign a time and place to "nothing", if it is located in time and place it isn't "nothing".

Sounds like unprovable claim. I am sure you are aware that we had "non-smartphones" before.

That was quickly corrected by Apple.

P1. Divine being which comes into existence out of nothing will come into existence out of nothing even if such divine being didnt exist before.

This is a tautology. In order for something to come into existence, it, by definition, couldn’t have existed before.

And by tautology, that makes it meaningless. All you’ve accomplished so far is to establish what “coming into existence” means conceptually.

P2. If such divine being will come into existence out of nothing, such being exists

Your first premise only established that coming into existence means it didn’t exist before. But here you tried to smuggle in that such being “will” come into existence out of nothing… that’s totally made up. You haven’t justified that anything will happen, you just asserted it.

Moreover, your argument does not address the fundamental issue of how we got to divinity in the first place. If it is possible for anything to pop into existence out of nothing then there’s no reason the universe could not have done the same, which negates the necessity of a God, which makes it’s assumption irrational.

Irrational is the opposite of proof.

I like how you try to attack an argument, and somehow still fail to disprove a single premise in it.

And by tautology, that makes it meaningless

It is called a deductive argument.

"Divine being which comes into existence out of nothing" - must exist logically, to say that "a divine being which comes into existence out of nothing" doesnt exist is a logical contradiction.

Your only argument could be that something cannot come from nothing, but that is unproved rule. Also, a divine being capable of overcoming such rule even from position of non-existance would still be capable of overcoming it.

Divine being which comes into existence out of nothing" - must exist logically

Uh, yeah, because you defined it that way.

In this statement you’re using the word “comes”, as in the action of it coming into existence, as already a given. But that act is the very thing at issue here, so all you’re doing is assuming the very thing you’re claiming to have proven. That’s not how proof works.

I’m sure you’ll find a way to pretend that very simple concept isn’t what it is, so I’ll go ahead and try the same point another way:

to say that "a divine being which comes into existence out of nothing" doesnt exist is a logical contradiction.

Correct. Now you’d like to know why, delete “out of nothing” because that’s irrelevant. What you are left with is “A being which comes into existence doesn’t exist”.

If you’re going to assert the being exists, of course it’s a contradiction to turn right around and claim it doesn’t.

All of this is just word play. None of this informs us as to what is actually true about the world.

Your only argument could be that something cannot come from nothing, but that is unproved rule. Also, a divine being capable of overcoming such rule even from position of non-existance would still be capable of overcoming it.

Not if you believe in logic since a non-existent being holding any kind of power is a logical contradiction, but we’ve already been through this before. You do not believe in logic, so this conversation goes no where.

Uh, yeah, because you defined it that way

No, its because things can come into existence out of nothing. Do you disagree?

a non-existent being holding any kind of power is a logical contradiction

Sounds like another unproved claim.

things can come into existence out of nothing. Do you disagree?

I do not agree. Demonstrate this.

Sounds like another unproved claim.

So is 2+2=4

I do not agree

Oh great, then you concede to unmoved mover argument.

“I do not agree” =/= “I agree with the negation”.

Logic 101 - F

“I do not agree” =/= “I agree with the negation”.

You have to agree with something if you want to have a position, because logically either A is true either negation of A is true. If you dont agree with anything, then you dont even think.

You have to agree with something if you want to have a position

A is either true or its negation is true. That is correct.

You fail to amount for the third position - neutral. That is not a position of not thinking, it is a position that entails the recognition that neither A or its negation have been demonstrated.

A jury convenes for 10 straight days. After combing through all of the evidence 3 times over, the jury decides that while the defendant’s innocence has not been proven, neither has his guilt. They correctly return a verdict of “not guilty”. They didn’t get there because they weren’t thinking.

Critical thinking 101 - F

Agree to disagree.

It’s not a disagreement, it’s a fact. You either acknowledge it or you do not.

I appreciate your opinion.

Agree to disagree is non logical.

To state that "agree to disagree" is nonlogical is a nuanced position that is both valid in some contexts and problematic in others

. The logical soundness of the statement depends on whether the disagreement is about objective facts or subjective opinions.