Silk_Sk said:
I thought Bob was above butthurt /r/athiest whine-botting but I suppose nobody's perfect. God to me has always been a concept beyond the logistics of reality or fiction. Present in both, exclusive to neither. Saying he exists just because it's more fun that way is as good an argument as any for both sides of the debate. Really, the problem with God is that everyone's concept of him is too limited. God is unlimited, completely and utterly. Taken to it's logical extreme, there is no possible argument for his existence because any logical concept of him would define a limit to him that we can conceive of. He exists simply because he can't not exist, they same way you and I do. Pi's argument is that it is necessary for us to believe in God because it is necessary for us to be uplifted. The other half of that argument is that if God did not exist then it wouldn't be necessary for us to be uplifted in the first place.
I had to wipe the vomit from my mouth when I was done reading this one.
Let's start with the first sentence, oh, an ad hominem? Nicely done.
So God to you is beyond reality. I've got news for you, that would mean god doesn't exist.
God could easily exist, for you to say there is no limit on what god is, is putting a limit on what god is. You're saying that god can't be that backwards Christian god, or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, when in reality, god could be any of those things, you simply don't know.
Oh, and I don't exist because I don't exist. I exist because I exist.
Also, belief in god depresses me more than it uplifts me, so that kinda destroys your argument.
TLDR: Your post is nothing more than pseudo-philosophical tripe.