The Museum of Hoaxes
Prove God Exists and Get $1,000,000
Posted By:
Lord Lucan
in somewhere strange
Jan 12, 2005
 <a href="http://www.thinkandreason.com/" title="Think and Reason">Think and Reason</a> is offering $1,000,000 if you can<b> prove</b> that God exists. There are conditions attached. But they do say: <i>"All you have to do is prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists. It is really that easy!"</i>

Is there really this money sitting waiting?

Supposing I said I was God - and prove I exist (should be easy) - is the money mine?
Category: Money, Religion; Replies: 1406

Comments
Page 19 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 17 18 19 20 21 >  Last ›
Timmo
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 01:16 PM
Guys, don't rush people. Remember, we are not them and do not know what is dearest to them. Only God knows. As well as maybe them and their closest friends. I should say at this stage that I think "every knee will bow to Jesus" means that all will be free of those searing chains.
Lindsay
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 01:17 PM
"I don't think you're an idiot, I just think you haven't realized how much your faith rests on unproven assumptions. You used logic to try to prove God. I simply used logic to point out the holes in your argument. Logic should never be used to prove God because you immediately have to abandon it to get your point across."

youre saying that the whole prospect of God is illogical. AS I said, if you're not going to give all points of view a chance, then why are you on here? Ive considered many things, and I still dont disregard the big bang theory and evolution. Im taking it all into account and trying to look at the bigger peices. Their like puzzle pieces and you have to fit them together to really see what the picture holds. Despite what you may think i am using logic. these are not presumptions and ramblings. Im not coming on here to be insulted as the air headed christian, who ignores all the facts, and is blind to the truth because of my faith. I do have faith, and my faith is much more strong than my reasoning. But i am trying to figure it all out, and i refuse to ignore the facts. if there are holes in my arguement then i can assure you they will be fixed.

In a way i suppose you could say my arguement for God existing is because he is God, but not in the terms you speak of. I am saying he could exist because he is God. The way I see it, everything had to begin somewhere and in order for that to happen, something had to once be greater than the rules be abide under and have always been. How do you get around that?
Lindsay
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 01:19 PM
timmo is right, no one is better than another. I don't believe I am any better even than any animals. God has created all things and holds no greater love for one thing than another. He just needed leadership on earth. If i have ever come off as arrogant I appologize

and also, I should add, that I was not speaking of humans directly. When I said that we are a conceited race, its because even though we may not see ourselves better than animals or other life forms, we have a hard time believing theres a world, dimension, or universe that is greater than ours and can do things ours cant. Thats the whole point im argueing.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 02:28 PM
Kiki said:

"Charybdis in Hell, could you please close the textbook and think for yourself? You're a moron who can't think for yourself. You have ONE point, so you keep repeating it over and over and over again after they've ALREADY explained their point of views. Why don't you go stand in the corner and think about it for a while while the big boys and girls have a chat."

Yeah, Charybdis, why don't you take your stupid textbooks filled with their stupid FACTS and go away and let the independent-minded fundamentalists with their NON-FACTS talk? How DARE you come in here and annoy these God-fearing people by bringing up inconvenient questions? They know what they were taught in Bible school and they don't need any stupid FACTS getting in the way of blind belief. You're making their heads hurt!
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 02:33 PM
Ashley said:

"Does God even have to be logical? HE'S FREAKING GOD. HE MADE EVERYTHING HE CAN DO WHAT EVER THE FRICK HE WANTS! You can't just pop up outta no where...look at a monkey....think "could that monkey be president one day?" I don't think thats how it goes...God created us in His image and He freaking made everything look beyond whats writen in your science book and THINK FOR YOUR FREAKING SELF!"

Yeah, stop blindly believing in science, which only derives its information by observation and testing. Start believing in religion which derives its doctrines by pulling them out of its ass. Read your Bible, believe everything in it, even the parts that contradict other parts, damn it!
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 02:37 PM
Lindsay, it's not a matter of my not understanding. I understand what you're saying, but what you're saying isn't supported by any evidence whatsoever.

For instance -

<i>The way I see it, everything had to begin somewhere and in order for that to happen, something had to once be greater than the rules be abide under and have always been. How do you get around that?</i>

You say everything had to begin somewhere, but you don't explain why. There must be a reason for you to believe this, so what's your reasoning? I'm perfectly capable of contemplating the idea that some things simply don't have a beginning. That doesn't equate to them being God, though.

Then, you turn right around and say that God doesn't have a beginning. Again, this makes no sense. You just said that EVERYTHING had to have had a beginning? Is God not included in EVERYTHING? How can something possibly not be included in everything?

Everything includes all that exists. If God isn't a part of everything, then logically God is nothing. How do you get around that?

Either God is a part of everything or everything doesn't actually mean everything. If so, then there's no reason lot's of things can't be above everything, including the physical laws of the universe. After all, why would you assume that only one thing is allowed outside of everything?
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 04:40 PM
Charybdis wrote:
"David, you do realize that most people are just skipping everything you post because it's so long, don't you?"

Yup.
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 05:08 PM
Ashley wrote:
"Okay if htere was no God and we all come from the same thing, why isn't there more diferentiation within the same species. If humans came from monkeys then (a) we evolved to survive in our suroundings, meaning that the entire species of monkeys would be gone being unable to survive any longer, or (b) mutation, we are mutant monkeys."

Why would there be? Variation and evolution are separate things. In answer to (a), speciation may be radiative, meaning sub-groups of a particular ancestor species adapt to different environmental niches, some may be specific adaption (or even random drift) by a geographically isolated population. Even species in direct competition for resources do not inevitably wipe out all their competitors. In answer to (b), all adaption is the result of mutation; forget monkeys, we are mutant fish.


"Not all mutations are the same, so what are the chances of us being the mutation of a species of monkey? Even If we were there would be more of a difference between us. Example: Trisomy 21, a mutation of chromosome 21commonly known as Down Syndrome.There are alot of people with this, but not one of them are the same. They have different levels of it. Some more severe then others, but I cannot see that mutation comming to be domanint, for many reasons, when something is mutated it usual, not always, has a shorted life span."

You have answered your own question. If most mutations are harmful, individuals with those mutations would be expected to produce less offspring than those without, hence in population terms the mutation's contribution to human variation is limited.
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 05:24 PM
Lindsay wrote:
"Basically you are saying that these laws are just around and we are discovering them, true. But that is our narrow minded side of them. Why should we assume that they have always just been around? Why would they always have just been around?"

Why not? I am as free to assume that 11 is inherently and eternally prime as you are to assume that it was at sometime exactly divisible by 3 until God decided it shouldn't be. I see no need to say rules must have been created and more than I see a need to say "well someone must have made 81 a cube number, it can't have just happened!"

What causes radioactive decay? Or any of a number of other quantum events that appear random? Certainly not any sort of 'hidden variable' as John Bell's inequality theorem demonstrated.
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 05:44 PM
Lindsay wrote:
"HOw did the big bang theory accomdate for the creation of time and where did the energy come from?"

From would imply a place to be before (sorry, BB creates space and time), and a before to be that place at (sorry BB creates space and time).

"unless its God, and has just always been or created itself, then thats impossible."

I'm not quite clear what is meant here so I'll cover all the bases: -

(1) BB energy comes from God. Yeah sure, whatever floats your boat. Basically it is unknowable whether this is true or false and provides no evidence for the existance or not of God.

(2) BB energy has always been. Perhaps so, perhaps we are just in one of an infinite series of big-bang/humongous-crunch cycles. Just as unknowable, but I guess it gets some cosmologists wet.

(3) BB energy just created itself. Or maybe the BB just borrowed the necessary energy, and will give it back later. We know that in nature it is quite possible for subatomic particles to do things they cannot have the energy to achieve (quantum tunneling for example), so perhaps the BB is jumping the threshold (I imagine some of you are thinking "Jumping the shark, more like! at this point) is the same manner, but on a quite greatly vaster scale.

"Its what ive been saying for a year. If you so chose to believe that whatever caused the big bang is God, then cool I guess we can debate that."

I chose not to believe it, and it's impossible to debate. Basically, I do not know whether God exists or not, nor do I believe it is possible to demonstrate logically, philosophically or physically that God exists or not.
Lindsay
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 09:00 PM
I'm sorry I guess my word choice for everything, wasn't quite right. I am speaking of our universe, our demension. Whatever you wish to call it.

"You say everything had to begin somewhere, but you don't explain why. There must be a reason for you to believe this, so what's your reasoning? I'm perfectly capable of contemplating the idea that some things simply don't have a beginning. That doesn't equate to them being God, though."

Is there anything in our universe that has been proven to have no beginning, to have created itself/always have been? It's a part of our natural order, that everything must have a beginning. AS I have said many times before, if something is capable of overstepping our bourders then they are a supernatural creature, one more powerful than us. You don't have to call it God, but that is what I would call a God.

David-

Just because there is a rule we didnt make, doesnt mean someone else didnt make it. Maybe 11 is a prime number because its organized as such in math, because someone organized it like that. Why would it just be like that?

also, there are many scientist who support the idea that God could have caused the big bang. If it isnt pausible then it would nice of you to explain why. YOu're saying that bb energy either borrowed energy from something else (which only cause the same problem of where the energy came from) or that its always been. I'm not quite sure how you envision God, but he's not some giant man with a beard floating off somewhere in the sky. He can appear in any form he would like. Actually, the bible supports that there was a large blast of energy which began to form the universe. I'm not a scientist, actually Im just some highschool student with a crappy public education with teachers who could care less if i actually learned what they told me to learn, so i can't say i know that much aside from the basics of the big bang theory.

But, this theory actually in my opinion opens up the door that God could be real because he could have caused the blast or been a part of it. In fact, I think I'll end up doing some research on the theory sometime but i dont have time now and I dont have time to elaborate on any my points. youll have to forgive me for this being so hazy, Im kinda in a hurry. But I wont discredit the evidence of the big bang theory. However I wont discredit the other things I know. That's the only reason I even came back on here, was because I wanted people to look past their belief to considers others. Because truly, I believe that the different beliefs dont have to be wrong, and if you put them together they might just show the truth. So hopefully you guys can do that too. Im not calling anyone in particular narrow minded so i dont want to come off as that.

But the way I see if, if bb energy is real, and has always been around, then its something more powerful than the rest of the universe we know. If everything became because of that, then we can't put limitations on it really because its above the limitations we know. That energy, could have been from God. So please just consider that... Try and look at everyones beliefs, because believe it or not... People who arent evolutionists arent just air heads with wishful thinking. There might be something to what we belief, and so passionately claim to feel hear and see. Maybe just maybe the big bang is real, and our lives arent completely pointless.

at least consider it with an open mind. i know that wasnt exactly the best arguement i will admit to that ha. But maybe i can come back and clear it up later.
lindsay
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 09:07 PM
cranky-

Your two posts had nothing to do with this debate, they were just sarcastic and slanderous. If you are going to discredit religion, then why not participate in the debate instead of writting ramblings with nothing to back them up.

From what you've written up there, your words are just as stupid as you claim theirs are. WAit, no, the great cranky media guy has spoken these words so he needs nothing to back it up, though others do? If you're going to write something then why don't you write something that is actually going to support your side. Ive debated with you many times on here and I know that you have reason to believe what you do, so why not show it, rather than picking the weakest arguements you can find and ignoring all the others?
Lindsay
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 09:16 PM
david-

Actually having considered it more what youve stated about the big bang not only doesnt disproove by points about the physical laws and their creator, but could possibly support it.

You said that it creates time and space. There are our laws.

It must have always been(unless something greater made it but i dont wanna get into that right now) basically the big bang not only created our boundries, but was once above them.
The bb energy would be the supernatural I was speaking of, which would considered a God by the human standard would it not? If that is argueable, then you could get into the debate of who the God is, and if it has a will for us. If it is a loving God, and if macro evolution took care of the rest.

That is a very undeveloped thought though especially considering that im not an expert of the big bang. So please thoroughly decipher what of that could be real. cuz the way I see it, what you said doesnt cast a shadow over the only arguement I came on here with.
Danae
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 10:36 PM
Yeah, stop blindly believing in science, which only derives its information by observation and testing. Start believing in religion which derives its doctrines by pulling them out of its ass. Read your Bible, believe everything in it, even the parts that contradict other parts, damn it!

- Cranky Media Guy

Ok, where does the Bible contradict itself? And I find it REALLY hard for a book to pull something from its donkey. A book doesn't have arms. Sorry, but talking like that has no purpose.
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 03:12 AM
Lindsay wrote:
"Just because there is a rule we didnt make, doesnt mean someone else didnt make it. Maybe 11 is a prime number because its organized as such in math, because someone organized it like that. Why would it just be like that?"

Why not? Why would you have to make 11 not divisible by 3? Surely 11 just is not divisible by 3? If you are saying the nature of 11 has somehow changed, provide proof. If you are saying the nature of 11 is somehow changeable, provide proof.

One of the premises in Carl Sagan's fictional work Contact was that unimaginably powerful beings had set the value of fundamental mathematical constants like e or pi so that their digital expansion included tell-tale sequences, like pi having a run of '1's and '0's that produce an image of the circumference of a circle alongside its diameter (pi being the ration of the two).

"also, there are many scientist who support the idea that God could have caused the big bang. If it isnt pausible then it would nice of you to explain why."

There are lots of theist scientists. Some think that God kicked off the big bang, some think that the 'randomness' of mutation is actually directed by God, some think that as all of nature is God's to command, 'natural selection' just means selection by God. Because they're theists doesn't make them wrong; because they're scientists doesn't make them right.

What someone else believes is up to them. What they want me to believe will have to come with proof.

"YOu're saying that bb energy either borrowed energy from something else (which only cause the same problem of where the energy came from) or that its always been."

No, today and all around us subatomic particles are borrowing energy from nowhere for the minute amounts of time they need it to perform quantum tunneling.

"But, this theory actually in my opinion opens up the door that God could be real because he could have caused the blast or been a part of it. In fact, I think I'll end up doing some research on the theory sometime but i dont have time now and I dont have time to elaborate on any my points."

You don't even need the theory. God could be real because God could be real; it's a truism. It's eveidence that God is real we're short of.

"at least consider it with an open mind. i know that wasnt exactly the best arguement i will admit to that ha. But maybe i can come back and clear it up later."

I have repeatedly admitted that God could exist, how much more open do you want? The fact that no theist seems able to understand that it might be possible to explain all the phenomena of the universe without including God seems to be a lack of imagination of their part.
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 03:27 AM
Lindsay wrote:
"The bb energy would be the supernatural I was speaking of, which would considered a God by the human standard would it not?"

No. That the BB energy had some existence outside of spacetime does not give it the properties of thought, the ability to plan, direct, perceive or act.

"[W]hat you said doesnt cast a shadow over the only arguement I came on here with."

I'm not clear what your argument is. One thing you have repeatedly stated is that God is not limited by our ideas of logic, time, space, etc. This is the end of any possible debate. For a start it is now entirely possible for God to have created the universe, you, me and Jesus, parted the Red Sea, stopped the sun in the sky, swept the world clean with a flood, and still not exist!
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 05:01 AM
*** HUMOUR ALERT ***

"Intelligent Disdain" by David B.
(C)2006, all rights reserved.

[The scene is a Saturday morning, the sun is shining and I am sitting on a bench in the park quietly reading my paper. Suddenly a theist of my acquaintance enters is a state of some agitation, with what can only be described as an overly smug look on his face.]

Smug Theist: I
Timmo
Member
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 07:02 AM
It would be better to let us make the arguments and then bite back, for otherwise you can just accomodate the theist arguments to be as stupid as you like.

I cannot have an idea of 11 which is not divisible by 3. However I've shown before that all laws must have a hierachy to something All Powerful ("conscious" in the sense that it or she or he has "free" (no laws) "will" (no laws may stop it)) . For even if there were an infinite series of big bangs, the whole of existence and all laws as a single unit has no laws outside it to restrict it.

After my recent post, I was hoping someone would ask me what the miracles were?
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 07:40 AM
Timmo wrote:
"I've shown before that all laws must have a hierachy to something All Powerful"

You've certainly said that (a lot), you have yet to show it (at all) however.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 07:56 AM
<i>Is there anything in our universe that has been proven to have no beginning, to have created itself/always have been?</i>

No. This applies to God as well.

Having said that, there is nothing we know about the universe that says things have to have had a beginning, either.

<i>It's a part of our natural order, that everything must have a beginning.</i>

We don't know this. This has never been proven one way or the other.

<i>AS I have said many times before, if something is capable of overstepping our bourders then they are a supernatural creature, one more powerful than us. You don't have to call it God, but that is what I would call a God.</i>

There is no evidence that the supernatural exists. There is no evidence that anything has ever overstepped our borders.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 07:59 AM
<i>I cannot have an idea of 11 which is not divisible by 3. However I've shown before that all laws must have a hierachy to something All Powerful </i> - Timmo

And I and David both have shown your logic to be faulty by using it to prove that each of us is, in fact, God himself. Does that not tip you off that something might not be right in your theory?
Lindsay
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 03:01 PM
"No. That the BB energy had some existence outside of spacetime does not give it the properties of thought, the ability to plan, direct, perceive or act."

That isnt what I was saying. I was saying if it created itself, or has always been then it is not bound by our same physical laws. That can only leave speculation as too what its boundries are, correct? And, you're right there is no debating whether or not God exists. I dont think we can have proof because we cant test the limitations of something that goes beyond our boundries.

Basically the only reason I came back on here, was because I had been thinking about the theory i stated, and I wanted to consider everyones beliefs and all the facts. Really when we aquire facts, we can only speculate as to what they mean. I don't want to disregard any facts cuz I dont think they fit into what I believe. I would rather change my perspective and see what all the facts together could mean. I just wanted to see if you guys would to, and obviously david, you do.

There is no more debating God, because as I said we cant test the limitations he has to see if its logical. All we can do is look at the world around us in a whole, and see the many different possibilities it leaves open. In my opinion, I think that many times we over look the truth of something because it has just never occcured to us or we shrug it off as impossible. That's why everything should be considered, even christians claim to have felt God. Or a muslims, or whatever religion. The difference between theist and atheist many times is their perspective of the facts. So really, the one who will get it right someday, will be the one who is open to all perspectives of it, right?

But aside from that there is no more debating this becase I dont believe there will ever be more proof of God than the world around us. Its the only physical evidence he has left. So unfortuantely your need for proof will never be quenched. Still, I do believe that there is more to life than the physical aspects. We are a race who are generally run by our emotions, so I think that our pysche are a big part of life. If someone comes to you looking for advice when their husband left them, offering them facts about the world really wont help them. People have emotional and mental needs and most of the time, the solution to those needs will be mental and physical. Our lives are a mix of mental and physical, and i dont think over looking the mental aspect would be wise.

Why am I saying this? Well I just wanted to say that in my opinion, if anyone will ever find proof of God, it will be a mix of mental and physical evidence. Maybe theres a reason people have always claimed to communicate by God. Some psychologist pass it off as a need too feel they ahve a purpose, or to feel loved, or protected. But how many problems are there in life where no solution has ever been created. Whether someone can find the solution to their problem is a whole different thing. If there was no such thing as purpose then why would some people find such problem in not having one? I think if theres a problem, then an answer has been there once before.

but those sorts of things dont apply to this sort of debate. Which is why no one will ever win it, because it over looks half of the human life.
Lindsay
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 03:02 PM
Charbydis-

Everything has to start somewhere, and that just causes a chain of everything leading back to soemthing. If everything has to start someone, then in the chain of creation, there must be something that didn't need a beginning. That would make it a supernatural being becasue it is not bound by our limitations to need a beginning. Right now I dont care if you understand taht cuz ive explained it many times.
lindsay
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 03:08 PM
I can't proove God through the physical evidence of the world. If its possible, then im def. not gonna be the one to find such evidence. Im no where near smart enough. But if you do want the truth, then why not start considering everything, even your mind, and even other peoples beliefs. if it possible for there to be a God, then it is possible for there to be a hell. That is something I would be thinking about, cuz by not searching with all your strength to find the answer to that then you really are staking your life that God isnt real. Basically, if you're not right about there being no hell, then youre subjecting yourself to endless amounts of more pain than youve ever felt in your whole life combined.

I know you dont think its logical for there to be a hell, but are you 100% sure? Now Im trying to scare you into being a christian cuz i dont believe in that. But i do believe in checking everything out before you make a decision like that. And by checking everything out, I do mean actually considering that for lack of a better word, religious people might really be communicating with a higher power.

thats all I can say. Take your life seriously. I'm sure enough in my belief to sell my life on earth to it. Im def. sure of that. But you've got more on the line right? So i guess youd have to be that sure. And if youre not then Id do some serious searching. Go with a mix of the facts and a mix of the heart. for lack of a better word. To say something with completely no basis... Every time Ive tried to get through a problem without God... I end up hurting myself or someone else. But when I do go to God, my eyes are opened to such amazing things. I cant control my world, but i can let God, and he can show me how to handle things. What god has done for me is the reason I believe in him, it has nothing to do with anything Ive said on this debate... tahts just me not wanting to be narrow minded... But even someone could proof to me that the bible is 100% not real, I would still believe in my God. Because I know him not by what some guy on a stage behind a puplet told me he was, but by what God has said he is. That is something that will mean nothing in this sort of debate, but I am chancing my whole life to it. Thats how much I trust my God.. maybe if im lucky it might mean the slightest bit to someone who reads it.

Ive got no more to argue, so i can only pray that you guys will make the right choice. believe it or not, i dont want anyone of you to go to hell. Im sure that doesnt really mean anything to you, but its the only reason im rambling on right now and the only reason ive ever debated on this sight. So just consider it, please.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 05:11 PM
Lindsay, it's simple.

We don't know that everything has to start somewhere.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 05:19 PM
As far as the "What have you got to lose?" argument, that argument is equally valid when promoting any idea. Why should I pick belief in God over any other viewpoint? Maybe if I don't worship the right aliens they'll sentence me to eternal imprisonment on another planet, much like the Scientologists believe.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 06:44 PM
Isn't anyone going to ask about those miracles? Try me!
Timmo
Member
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 07:22 PM
OK, well I'll go anyway;

I've mentioned the one about my big brother and my mum in the church before. And the one about my brother's text before. This one is about a convent my mum went to to ask for some prayers for my sister's wedding, not far from where I live. (I assure you my family's quite normal. I knew a nun who was there for a while and she was a lady with an air of great gentleness and life, though she was massively old and died ages ago.) My mum was watching a video about it a couple of days ago. There were 3 women who were spending time there to see what it was all about. One's life was slightly iffy because she spent her time with 2 other blokes and wasn't sure which one she fancied, or wanted to marry, even, I'm not sure. The other 2 women had some problems but I can't remember what these were. I missed that bit I think.
Anyway, after a while these nuns ("poor clares", I think they were) tried this meditation technique on them. Basically you had to lie still, imagine you were walking along a road with Jesus, and that was it. One of the women said she had the imagination of a dead frog. For her it was as if you or I tried to imagine it now. She just thought about it and not much happened. Another said that something happened but she didn't want to mention it. You see, she had been crying many times in front of the nuns and didn't want to make it worse. The next morning there was this priest bloke who read out this book which contained the part where Jesus was healing a little girl who was dead. Only that Jesus said she was asleep. He said "talitha koum", which means, "little girl, I say to you, get up". At this point the woman who had kept her experience a secret so far started crying. For this is exactly the same thing which Jesus had turned (or maybe He didn't turn, I dunno) and said to her in her "vision" the previous evening. Funnily enough, she wasn't crying with happiness or feeling spiritual or peaceful at all. She was totally freaked out, as if Jesus was some ghost or virus watching her all the time, "even now", she said. For the vision on it's own wouldn't have been uncanny. She wanted to stay next to the head nun, because she felt that if Jesus were to "get at her", or attack her, so to speak, she would be protected by her. Like on a horror movie when the zombie never attacks during daytime in a crowd. Humans just like to be near each other, I guess. The nun suggested that maybe Jesus did it so that she could be explained it or brought through it by nuns who love her, and she agreed that it made sense, but only sort of. I don't know how long ago this was filmed, or where God's going with it, but, yeah...
Lindsay
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 | 07:49 PM
"As far as the "What have you got to lose?" argument, that argument is equally valid when promoting any idea. Why should I pick belief in God over any other viewpoint? Maybe if I don't worship the right aliens they'll sentence me to eternal imprisonment on another planet, much like the Scientologists believe."

If you have a problem reading, then please don't respond to me. I'm pretty sure I remember talking about keeping your persepective open to EVERYTHING. the word everything doesnt mean christianity.

By saying we dont know everything had to start somewhere are you implying that things dont have to have a beginning, or its perfectly all things that ever existed to have a beginning..

One, if things dont have to have a beginning, then one of the common atheist arguements that having a higher power that has always been around and such, is really not valid because you are opening the door up for things more powerful than what we have on earth. It would make the arguement seem pointless because if some things dont have to have a beginning, then really it pushes the "thats not possible" crap out the window. If something can have always been around then i think that a blind person might have a good chance of being able to see.

If youre saying that its impossible for something to not have a beginning then you find out where everything began and tell me. Because the chain of where things came from has to start somewhere, and wherever it starts will have always had to be around. if thats bb energy, then cool. w/e. obviously time was created somewhere and before it was created things didnt have to have a beginning well obviously cuz time didnt exist.

What it comes down to, is david is right and there is no argueing this. the only thing a person can do is open their mind to other perspectives and figure out what makes sense to them... Really i have nothing more to say and if you dont agree with what i said above then thats ok because i find explaining things to you is like explaining things to my five year old brother so someone else can tell you.

God bless people byebye
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 | 02:21 AM
"Everything has to start somewhere"

Circles don't.
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 | 03:08 AM
Lindsay wrote:
"I'm pretty sure I remember talking about keeping your persepective open to EVERYTHING. the word everything doesnt mean christianity."

But as the tenets of many faiths are not compatible it becomes impossible to follow them all, hence in the end you have to choose which beliefs you will follow.

Despite saying several times that I have no idea whether God exists or not, I am not an agnostic, I am an atheist. I do not believe in God like I do not believe a horde of Romulans riding invisible unicorns of doom is waiting on the far side of the moon for the signal to attack. I don't know they aren't there, but I fail to see the logic of behaving as though they are just in case.

"By saying we dont know everything had to start somewhere are you implying that things dont have to have a beginning, or its perfectly all things that ever existed to have a beginning."

Unless time is circular, in which case the beginning would be the end, or rather there would be no beginning or end just round or round.

"One, if things dont have to have a beginning, then one of the common atheist arguements that having a higher power that has always been around and such, is really not valid because you are opening the door up for things more powerful than what we have on earth. It would make the arguement seem pointless because if some things dont have to have a beginning, then really it pushes the "thats not possible" crap out the window."

I agree. I would argue though that it is equally nonsense to say that as everything has to have a beginning that the ultimate origin of everything is God, who doesn't have to have a beginning. There's more than one type of atheist (as there are more than one type of theist). Some, as you quite rightly point out, will happily swallow the same premise dressed as science that they spit out when it comes from the theist camp; I would rather argue (I believe correctly) that the concept of a necessary ultimate origin is not a proven, and even if accepted does not mandate that the causeless thing has to be God. You can draw the line anywhere prior to the first femtosecond of the universe with equal validity.

"What it comes down to, is david is right and there is no argueing this. the only thing a person can do is open their mind to other perspectives and figure out what makes sense to them..."

Which is why faith is so very important (and why I admire it in people even when I think they are wrong). I believe in things I can empirically prove, or that I reasonably expect that someone else could prove to my satisfaction if asked.
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 | 03:11 AM
My faith, then, is in other people.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 | 08:46 AM
I don't know why Lindsay feels so threatened by me and has to insult me at every turn. I guess when your cherished beliefs are shown to be bullshit you start panicking.

Timmo, it's a good story but otherwise meaningless to us. It may have impacted you greatly, but the rest of us weren't there. We don't know what actually happened nor do we know the people involved. In other words, it's untestable and therefore irrelevant to our understanding of things.

I'm not trying to be rude about it, it's just that personal experiences are absolutely subjective and will vary from person to person. It's possible we would have perceived things exactly as you did, but then again it's possible we would have noticed something you missed that made sense of it all.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 | 07:03 PM
I can't think of any way I could experience it differently to be honest. The woman who experienced it had some belief in God. That is, she had prayed occasionally for gas bills and stuff. As to the other two I'm not sure.

I know that you think many of my reasons for believing in God are unreliable. I know some really scientific Christians who, previously, have had neutral or anti-christian desires, and it is also probably the case with atheists. I was never like this. I am incredibly lucky in that I think God has given me reason to believe in Him after I searched, such as the stories above and the other arguments I talked about. People will probably hate me for saying this, but I sometimes wonder whether, had my experience been different, I would be able to face it if, if, the whole universe is the opposite of what I prefer (and not just about God). There are times when I'm typing along on things like this and I'll switch on to auto pilot and make out the "other side" is thinking wishfully, without actually thinking about it myself. But less often I step back and realise that there's an answer which makes my control over it seem like 1 termite in a termite colony. I may just propose to you that if it is true, if God is there, and there comes that really weird mood one day (you know how it is) where convincing oneself seems exhausting and it is just so much easier to "let go" and you sort of say "Yes" to God, then even though it seems terrifying to let go of the tightrope, God has massive hands just beneath you, because He Loves you so astronomically much. He just waits for people to say yes. This isn't formerly the nothing-to-lose argument. I am just saying that, if the day comes, don't fear God responding to "yes".
SoxSweepAgain
Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 | 11:36 AM
Religion. If it weren't so evil, it would make a nice hobby.

Religion = worst thing man ever invented.

Cavemen invented gods.

Get real, Xians.

/Goes for Allahjabbahs and Mosesfreaks, etc., too.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 | 12:45 PM
Well rambled. I don't know what we did without you all this time.
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 | 04:42 AM
"Religion = worst thing man ever invented."

No, that would be telesales!
David B.
Member
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 | 12:45 PM
Timmo wrote:
"I know that you think many of my reasons for believing in God are unreliable. I know some really scientific Christians who, previously, have had neutral or anti-christian desires, and it is also probably the case with atheists."

Why describe it as a desire? I neither desire God to exist, nor not to exist, I merely don't believe he does because I have no reason to.

"I was never like this. I am incredibly lucky in that I think God has given me reason to believe in Him after I searched, such as the stories above and the other arguments I talked about."

Except it becomes self-justifying; you believe in God because God wants you to. Why isn't it extraterrestrials manipulating you with mind control rays? Or perhaps Shaitaan has deceived you into believing a false doctrine and you're going to Hell? How would you ever know?

"I sometimes wonder whether, had my experience been different, I would be able to face it if, if, the whole universe is the opposite of what I prefer (and not just about God)."

This would imply that you would be unable to adapt to being wrong in your beliefs. While being more than a bit egotistical, it would also give you a very strong perceptual bias when it comes to personal experience and reasoning. Perhaps you believe in God merely because subconciously you are too scared not to?

"I may just propose to you that if it is true, if God is there, and there comes that really weird mood one day (you know how it is) where convincing oneself seems exhausting and it is just so much easier to "let go" and you sort of say "Yes" to God"

It's not that "convincing oneself seems exhausting", as I don't need to convince myself of anything, I need to be convinced. I am not convinced there is a God, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster or lurking Romulan Lunar Invasion Force; some convincing evidence or argument for one of the above would be most helpful.
saeer
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 | 05:52 PM
at first lets see what we expect from existence of god (what is god) we all know the answer: being strongest being knowledgable more than any one else being ... so if we can prove that some one exist with all these characters we can call him god now the proof :
we can understand a concept or a character of something that when opposite character exists, for example we can say the day has light because we know about the darkness of night if the darkness didnt exist we couldnt understand the existence of light for another example we call a man strong because we call anotherone weak better to say weakness is the reason that we can understand strongness (try to find an speciality with out opposite form of that ,its impossible)now you can guess what is going to happen if there is a weak man means there is a strong man and if that man is not the strongest so it should be a man who is strongest so surely the strongest exists and we can do the same for all the specialities and the last part of proof is to prove all of the men who have those specialities are one and then we call that one God ok by same reason if a strongest exists who is not the most able so it means that a one exists who is the strongest and the most able now you can do this to all specialities a man will appear who is best in all of the specialities lets call him GOD.
David B.
Member
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 | 04:43 AM
What you think God is Marilyn vos Savant's brain in Hulk Hogan's body?!

The strongest, most intelligent being in the universe is still only a being; he/she may even exist on this planet (unlikely, but to date all living beings we know of exist on this planet)! In what way does that make him/her God? What happens when he/she ages, withers, goes senile, and dies?

Picking some limited, mortal individual and calling it God merely for being the least-limited of mortal individuals seems to me a pointless exercise. Why stick at just one? Strength and wisdom are just two characteristics, why not determine the most beautiful, sensual women ever (Rita Hayworth) and call her the Goddess of Love? Or make Victor Mature the new Apollo (at least my mum would be happy)?

So, any suggestions for a new God of War?
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 | 10:02 AM
That's definitely going in the scrapbook. It's been a while since I've seen such classic nonsensical rambling. 😊
Sir Carter!
Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 | 09:55 AM
Wow, I can't believe this is still going on. The last I checked it was really quiet.

Also, What happened to Allen? Was there a long Star Wars Seminar going on? Captain, Captain, Captain....Where for art thou Captain Al...


Anyway, came to say "Hello". Have fun in this pointless argument.

It's not a waste of time at all. :roll:


Cheers

Cartour

PS. By the way, Fresh air is good for you. I really recommend it.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 | 11:02 AM
Pot. Kettle. Black.*

And it's never a waste of time to try to dispel ignorance. It just seems that way.


*Yes, I know it I'm stealing this from a more active thread, but it seemed so terribly appropriate here.
Carter
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 | 10:09 AM
"Pot. Kettle. Black.*"

What?

Uh.... Beach Balls and Buttery Jam....
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 | 11:31 AM
I meant that it was rather hypocritical of you to state that we had no lives when you're the one who came back and resurrected the thread in the first place. Pot calling the kettle black.
David B.
Member
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 | 06:48 AM
"Pot calling the kettle black."

But my pots are made of Pyrex(tm), and my kettle is white (with blue buttons)?!
Sir Carter!
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 | 01:16 PM
Chary Man said: "I meant that it was rather hypocritical of you to state that we had no lives when you're the one who came back and resurrected the thread in the first place. Pot calling the kettle black."


No. You see, this isn't my hobby. Coming in every once in a while to check up only takes up about two minutes of my time. But you and many others, seem to find the time to debate about God and his existence, when, you ADULTS, should be making your time more productive than sitting near the comp trying to prove everyone wrong, TRYING to be smart, and, the usual, sarcastic remark.

But anywho, Good luck and Have Fun.


Sir Carter is.... out!

Oh yeah, Stars and Clovers, Stars and Clovers.
Sir Carter
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 | 01:20 PM
One more thing. I didn't "state" that you had no lives. I just insinuated it! :lol:

Now....I'm ..Out!
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 | 09:03 AM
To repeat myself - fighting ignorance and superstition is never a waste of time.
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 | 04:07 AM
"To repeat myself - fighting ignorance and superstition is never a waste of time."

Even if we are massively outnumbered.

This then, is our digital Therompylae, and the armies of Jerkses shall not pass.

Go, tell the Sceptics, you who read this forum,
That we fought the superstitious, and ne'er did ignore 'em.

Go, tell them all at JREF, that we stood alone,
And withstood every 'argument', that was by a woo-woo thrown.

Go, tell them on talk.origins, that here was Darwin's lore
Defended with great valor, and did carry all before.

Go, tell them o'er at CSICOP, that though our bones grow cold,
That no 'bleeding madonnas' will e'er here gain foothold.

Go too, and tell the churchmen, though they think our souls may rot,
We won't bend to their position, for we know that God is not.

(Apologies to the Spartans of Leonidas and Thespians of Demophilus.)
jessie in florida
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 | 09:30 AM
so why don't you guys believe in god?
I would read the entire thread, but it's just too much.

Just a quick reason please.
David B.
Member
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 | 10:10 AM
Because I have no reason to.

To quote Stephen Roberts: -
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Belief isn't my default state. If someone cannot prove something to me with evidence, example and rational argument then it is as real to me as the tooth fairy and underpants gnomes.

N.B. This also applies to science, hence I don't believe M-Theory either!
josh
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 | 04:02 AM
Hey.. This is quite easy.

If you want proof that God exists God actually offers it. heres how.

(1 Corinthians 14:22) Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:

Now.. ill explain that.. Christ died on the cross that he could send the comforter (which is the holy ghost). This holy ghost experience is offered to all just follow the simple instructions of

(Acts 2:38) repent, be baptised and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit.. and you will speak in tongues.

This experience has been around for 2000 years and it is proof on the day of pentecost. And this same experience is proof now. and its tangible and its true.

Seek god ask him to fill you with the holy ghost, then make the decision, if he is true or not.

Of course i asked for it, he gave it, and im now a beleiver at a church called the revival fellowship http://www.trf.org.au
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 | 08:37 AM
Geeze Josh, give us a challenge. Or better yet, a 'proof' that hasn't been shot down countless times before.


All together now - <i>Personal annecdotes do not constitute proof</i>

There that wasn't too painful, was it?
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 | 08:24 AM
Speaking in tongues (properly called Glossolalia), has occurred since time immemorial, for a start the Priestesses of the god Apollo at Delphi were making a career out of it 500 years before Christ was born.

Clearly these ardent believers in the Greek pantheon were being rewarded by Apollo (with the blessing of Athene, within whose purview all devine gifts to mortal fell) for their devotion. Proof positive that the Greek gods are real.

Modern science has a quite different take (naturally).

For a start, scientists noticed that the 'tongues' people spoke in where always strikingly similar to their native speech. A Russian glossolalic speaks in a tongue made up of Russian syllables, a Welsh one in Welsh syllables (Samarin, 1993).

Also, glossolalia can be learnt, and was at one time a not uncommon act in English music-halls. One of the last modern proponents of the art, Stanley Unwin, was a popular TV character, reknowned for his almost intelligible explanations of pieces of modern technology.

All modern recorded cases of religious glossolalia are indistinguishable from similar phenomena in schitzophrenics or people with hightened social dependencies. In contrast to biblical glossolalia, where apostles where said to be understood by everyone, modern cases are not understandable by anyone.
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 | 08:26 AM
Stanley Unwin is asked his opinion of Elvis Presley:

http://www.stanleyunwin.com/audio/Meetit%20the%20Press%20-%20Presley.mp3

Deep joy!
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 | 09:23 AM
An interesting use of glossolalia as a form of secret communication can be seen in the "Swallow Talk" (after the bird) of Japanese "Vagabonds" (i.e. itinerant labourers, con-men, etc.).

Although consisting of little more than adding the syllable woo after each sound in the spoken message (giving an auditory effect similar to bird-song), it was apparently quite enough to throw off an eavesdropper not familiar with, or not expecting, the method.

In English, the closest equivalent would be pig-latin, ethay iddskay amegay ofyay ixingmay upyay ouryay ordsway. However, the structure of the Japanese language is said to make swallow-talk much harder to crack 'on the fly'
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 | 09:35 AM
And shame on me for forgetting "Latka Gravas" from Taxi.
Carter S.
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 | 09:47 AM
Deebie doop, poop n' scoop!

Ah, I hate it when I speak in tongues like that.
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 | 03:34 AM
Try listening to Kurt Schwitters' Ursonate sometime (available from Amazon).

http://www.peak.org/~dadaist/Sounds/03.mp3

Now that's speaking in tongues.
:gulp:
Page 19 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 17 18 19 20 21 >  Last ›

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.