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 22 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 20 21 22 23 24 > 
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 | 05:34 AM
Lebbell said:

<i><b>"For the atheists here [about 90% of the posts?], there is no need to listen to religious people or engage with their thinking because they are wrong, stupid, brainwashed, deluded or wicked and can even made fun of."</b></i>

Sorry, not all arguments deserve equal consideration. When an adult expresses belief in imaginary things like gods, the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus, the natural response is ridicule. It's time to grow up and face reality. Would you tell your grown children they should keep believing in Santa?

<b><i>"Science, as most scientists acknowledge, has limits."</b></i>
Thanks for the news flash. But please don't think this gives religion validity.

<b><i>"The problem is that because an eminent scientist says so, many people accept it unquestioningly. (The same is true, of course, of eminent religious figures.)"</b></i>

Even Nobel laureates can be wrong. True, their opinions usually get more respect, but they are still held to the same standard of proof as everyone else. You have to back up your claims with hard data. That's the beauty of the scientific process. What happens when you question religion? Often, it's war.

<i><b>"For Dawkins, it's Animal Farm revisited: science good, religion bad."</b></i>
No. It's science real, religion superstition.

<i><b>"...prominent atheists such as Dawkins in his book The God Disillusion, seem not to have abolished God so much as replaced him
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 | 09:37 AM
For the atheists here [about 90% of the posts?], there is no need to listen to religious people or engage with their thinking because they are wrong, stupid, brainwashed, deluded or wicked and can even made fun of. That demonizing of most of the world's population rather closes off discussion.


Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Such statements only prove that you yourself are bigoted and close-minded.

If there were no reason for us to engage in religiously-minded people then none of us would even be here. It's not as if I enjoy it, it's frustrating and annoying having to work to understand some of the less literate people who feel the need to post their opinions on here. But I do it as my small part in the fight against ignorance.

I have no issue with people who accept the fact that their beliefs are simply personal and unprovable. But those people aren't the ones that come on here to argue with us. Instead we get those people who feel that proof exists, and use tortured logic and poorly understood science to help 'prove' their beliefs. We have taken it upon ourselves to counter those arguments with true logic and scientific fact.

Science explains causes [and not all of them], but not whether there are reasons behind such causes. It can't determine or explain human achievements in aesthetics, morals, politics or law, let alone whether there is meaning in the universe, or what it is.


And neither can religion. Again, as Captain Al stated above, just because science can't explain something doesn't mean that your religion can. There are just as many unanswered questions in religion as in science, you just choose not to ask them.

Science explains causes [and not all of them], but not whether there are reasons behind such causes.


Again, neither can religion. It simply pushes those causes back a step and pretends they don't exist.

Example: Who created God?

And if you had bothered to actually read any of these comments you would have seen that your complaints, and our rebuttals, have been seen over and over again during the course of this ongoing 'discussion'. If you have anything new to bring to this, please do so. I'm sure all of us would greatly appreciate something that hasn't been argued to death already.
Lebbell
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 | 05:39 PM
The standard of debate[?] here is so poor, it gets the 'a bunch of nutters muttering to themselves' award.

If you want reasoned debate and response, lift your game.
Charybdis
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 | 05:51 PM
Ahh, the cry of the person who has no argument to present, yet feels that he has to say <i>something</i> to keep from facing that sad fact.

Any other insults you'd like to throw at us in lieu of an actual point?
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 | 05:07 AM
"<i><b>If you want reasoned debate and response, lift your game.</i></b>"

Why don't you get in the game?

Every one of your arguments is an attempt to discredit science. Even if you were successful all you would have accomplished is to discredit science. You would still have to prove religion is right. So why don't you get that out of the way first? Give us one thing that shows religion has any basis in fact.
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 | 07:15 AM
Lebbell wrote:
"The standard of debate[?] here is so poor, it gets the 'a bunch of nutters muttering to themselves' award. If you want reasoned debate and response, lift your game."

Really? I have answered all of your points, you have yet to answer any of mine. Who exactly doesn't understand 'debate' here?

1. You claimed God and natural abiogenesis are equal theories. What was your 'God hypothesis'? How did you test it? What were the results?

2. You claimed that for evolution to be true it would be necessary to find remnants of all the unsuccessful mutations and adaptations throughout history. Why then, for gravity to be true, is it not necessary to know the gravitational forces and accelerations of all things past and present? Do you take gravity on faith?

3. You claimed believing in things unseen is faith, not science. Do you have sense evidence of atoms? Do you have sense evidence that the Earth goes round the Sun? Do you take these things on faith too?

4. You claimed that the existence of God is a theory. Which, in science, is something internally consistent, based upon evidence, widely tested and useful. Can you demonstrate how God meets these requirements?

The term 'theory' means something specific to a scientist, and they call an idea like evolution a theory for very good reason. If you want God to be treated as a theory by scientists, you must come up to their standards, not they down to yours.
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 | 07:34 AM
And to expand on one point a bit.

Recipe to prove God:

A. Take one working hypothesis for God.

B. Work through the hypothesis thouroughly until it is able to account for as large a set of actual observations as you can afford.

C. (i) Apply the hypothesis to an unknown and non-trivial case to make a prediction about an unknown result or observation that is uniquely true of your hypothesis among all others.

C. (ii) If unable to form a unique prediction, chose one that most differs between your hypothesis and as many competing hypotheses as you can.

D. Propose and conduct the experiment or observation that would veryify your prediction.

E. (i) If observation supports your hypothesis, repeat procedure from step (C).

E. (ii) If observation is neutral or antagonistic to your hypothesis, repeat procedure from step (B) if your hypothesis is salvageable, or step (A) if it is not.
Lebbell
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 | 07:16 PM
David B

Your points are full of 'special pleading'.

Example: You have conveniently narrowed the meaning of the word 'theory' to one that suits you [1], knowing full well that any further debate is conveniently confined to scientific proof [If God can't be scientifically proven, he can't possibly exist]. By the standards you have set my counter would be: Prove God doesn't exit.

Who are we to claim so much from so little we do understand? Mankind's collective intelligence and knowledge since our very beginning, is no more than a tiny faint echo in the universe and we don't even know what that is.

Like I've already said, there is no room for intelligent debate here.

THEORY:
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music
Fonzie
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 | 08:56 PM
And around we go again.

I really believed this thing was dead after my tumbleweed worthy comment. Ill have to come up with something better to stump everyone.

To avoid lebbells request for David B to repeat all the points he just made, Id like to pursue a different line of thought here.

Why are you so hung up on meaning?

Are you saying you couldnt make it through life without the belief that there is some meaning and purpose to your existence, even though you cant ever know what that meaning is until you are dead? Thats a genuine question, Im not trying to be facetious. Even though Douglas Adams is over used in this sort of arena his point comes to mind here, surely its enough to admire a beautiful garden without imagining fairies at the bottom of it?
Why do you need to have meaning? Primitive man probably thought rain was something that happened because the sky was angry at them for wearing their beards to long. But it isn't. It just happens. Theres a scientific explanation for how. but no why, nor does it need a why.
Lebbell
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 | 10:42 PM
I come from a long family line of Bee Keepers. If any here wants to read the story of something equally unbelievable as the existence of God, read a little book called 'The Bee', or even look up the story of The Monarch Butterfly that migrates 3000 miles from Sth. America to Nth. America to breed and 3000 miles back again [and that's only one of their many amazing feats].

This butterfly is less than 1/2 a gram in weight and weight for weight, we would need to cover the distance that's between the earth and the Sun 4 1/2 times under our own power to equal the achievement. A new batch does it every year, same flight path and no older butterfly to show them the way.

Neither of the above creature's most amazing feats [and Bee's are a 1000 times more brilliant than the average Joe who thinks they know a bit about Bees, even remotely suspects], nor the collective intelligence from brains far less than the size of a pin head, can be explained by science that has been studying both creatures for a very long time.

The sad thing about [many] atheists, is they lack any sense of wonder or ever ask the question, "OK, it's beyond man's tiny intelligence, but maybe there is a meaning to life?"

There is no compulsion in the belief in God, but only an idiot or someone with an agenda, would rule out any possibility.
Fonzie
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 | 11:17 PM
Riiiiiiight,

Amazing feats of nature in this life must mean there is a special purpose for everything in the next?

sure. If you want.

You didnt answer my question.

Again-

Why do you NEED to have meaning?
Lebbell
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 | 12:25 AM
'Amazing feats of nature in this life must mean there is a special purpose for everything in the next'?

That's what you said Dumbo, not what I said. Since when does anyone mistake 'maybe' for 'must'?

Since when it suits them[?]

Like I said: No intelligent life forms to debate with here, just a bunch of nutters muttering to themselves!

It's been fun, but I've got better thing to attend too ..like my [far more intelligent] Bees.
Fonzie
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 | 12:54 AM
Heres the correction you requested.

"Amazing feats of nature in this life MAYBE mean there is a special purpose for everything in the next"

Notice something??

Thats right! Its STILL an absurdly idiotic comment/ proposition.

And you still haven't answered my question.

But I can see your fiercely superior intellect doesn't need to answer questions or even think through its own ideology to win a discussion argument or debate. Not when you can just grizzle and storm off.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 | 02:03 AM
<b><i>"The Monarch Butterfly that migrates 3000 miles from Sth. America to Nth. America to breed and 3000 miles back again [and that's only one of their many amazing feats].

This butterfly is less than 1/2 a gram in weight and weight for weight, we would need to cover the distance that's between the earth and the Sun 4 1/2 times under our own power to equal the achievement. A new batch does it every year, same flight path and no older butterfly to show them the way."</i></b>

Another example of bad science by Lebbell. There are no Monarch butterflies in South America. The southernmost breeding area of the North American Monarchs is in northern Mexico. Also, their life span is less than 2 months, not enough time to cover the migration distance. It takes 3 or 4 generations each year before the species reaches it's northernmost point. An exception to this are the Monarchs that show up in Burmuda and England. This can happen if the winds are right. The winds can also carry them to New Zealand as well. Still it's an amazing feat for such a tiny creature but that's no reason to think they must be the work of a some invisible god. The Monarch butterfly is just one more example of the power of evolution.

<i><b>"Neither of the above creature's most amazing feats nor the collective intelligence from brains far less than the size of a pin head, can be explained by science that has been studying both creatures for a very long time."</i></b>

A perfect example of an "<i>Argument from Ignorance</i>". Since Lebbell doesn't know how the monarch butterfly travels so far he thinks no one else knows either. It's true scientists don't know all the details of animal migration, but they have learned a lot and they are learning more all the time. Maybe he should try doing a little research from reputable sources? You know, sources that are actually doing the research, not the ones that have predetermined conclusions and will deliberately lie and deceive to prove them.
Lebbell
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 | 03:04 AM
Fonzie wrote:
'Thats right! Its STILL an absurdly idiotic comment/ proposition'. Why? Do you have any proof?
-------------------------
My question is this: why, in the name of reason are atheist's so deliberately unreasonable? I know religious fundamentalists are often unreasonable, but - as non-believers point out - they are taking a position derived from some authority they regard as more ultimate, such as a sacred text. Atheists don't have that excuse. (And authority and reason are not necessarily mutually exclusive - we all take science on authority, in the sense that we do not replicate experiments or have a command of all the disciplines.)


I know some readers are irritated by the use of word evangelistic, but I'll add another, militant. I maintain they are entirely appropriate. Dawkins and co. are evangelistic because they explicitly want to convert everyone to the "good news" that there is no God. They are militant because they are "combative and aggressively active", to quote my Concise Oxford Dictionary.

I post this with a little trepidation and my this qualification: I do not claim that all or most atheists are militant or evangelistic. Nor are all Christians.

One thing that interests me is the complacent assumption by so many who oppose the belief in god that reason is entirely and only on their side.

The vast majority of humanity, today and throughout history, have been believers of some sort, but only this happy few [atheists] have seen clearly and truly. And - this is sometimes implied, sometimes explicit - it is because they have the moral courage to follow reason wherever it guides, whereas the rest of us wallow deliberately in delusion because we need a crutch or because we simply haven't thought it through. We may be brainwashed, deluded, stupid, wicked - but the cause is necessarily some deficiency in US.

Look where Stalin and Chairman Mao took their people by banning religion and embracing militant reason. Probably about 200m dead. Makes Hitler's Holocaust look like a minor cook-out by comparison.
Fonzie
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 | 04:03 AM
So your still not going to answer any questions?

Ill keep trying anyway.
Does this-

"That's what you said Dumbo"

or this

"Like I said: No intelligent life forms to debate with here, just a bunch of nutters muttering to themselves!"

Count as being combative and aggressively active? Those were just from this page I couldn't be bothered looking for all the other comments like this you've posted.

But yes speaking for myself you are right on this point "the cause is necessarily some deficiency in US." That is what I personally believe. Obviously I don't think people should be persecuted and murdered because of it. But I don't think they should run countries and start wars and teach their beliefs in schools as though they deserve the same respect as maths, science or finger painting.

Honestly I would love to know. Why do you need life to have a meaning?
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 | 08:07 AM
Lebbell wrote:
"Your points are full of 'special pleading'.

Example: You have conveniently narrowed the meaning of the word 'theory' to one that suits you [1], knowing full well that any further debate is conveniently confined to scientific proof [If God can't be scientifically proven, he can't possibly exist]. By the standards you have set my counter would be: Prove God doesn't exit."

Actually, I used the scientific definition, and gave copious references to justify it. It was you who said that the 'theory of God' is equally valid to the theory of evolution. Yet when the criteria by which the theory of evolution is judged are raised you object that the definition is 'too narrow' and makes God not provable, disproving your assertion.

God is not scientifically provable, you are right. Given that the usual attributes assigned to him are the ability to do anything, no scientific test can conclusively disprove God as he could merely alter reality so as not to be tested. This has been pointed out (by the atheist side) many times before. This doesn't prove God doesn't exist and no-one here says it does (except when, like you, they're setting up strawmen arguments), hence faith is necessary.

Repeating "evolution is just a theory", and using the dictionary definition of theory to justify this, demonstrated nothing but a lack of understanding of science in general and evolution in particular. Evolution is a scientific theory, it meets the scientific definition. If God is an equal theory (as you said) then it too must at least meet that definition.
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 | 08:33 AM
Lebbell wrote:
"My question is this: why, in the name of reason are atheist's so deliberately unreasonable? I know religious fundamentalists are often unreasonable, but - as non-believers point out - they are taking a position derived from some authority they regard as more ultimate, such as a sacred text. Atheists don't have that excuse."

Because atheists are human beings (even if some fundamentalists deny this). I'm sure many atheists think they are arguing from the authority of correct logic, to a mind that believes it is behaving rationally this would be no less compelling that a 'sacred text'. Why would you expect atheists to behave any differently to anyone else?

I halfway agree with you on Dawkins, whose approach I do not like, but why is it bad? It is acceptable to proselytise for any number of religions, so why must someone who believes in no religion not seek converts also?

"One thing that interests me is the complacent assumption by so many who oppose the belief in god that reason is entirely and only on their side."

A limited form of reason is. Methodological Naturalism has never found anything to support the existence of God, and from its basic premise it therefore rejects the notion (along with tooth faeries and Santa Claus). But MN is just a single philosophy, although uniquely one reducible to mathematical logic, and it is within the realm of philosophy that arguments about the existence or not of God belong.

God is not provable or disprovable by science, but neither does God's existence prove or disprove science. The two philosophical positions are effectively independent.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 | 09:36 AM
<i>My question is this: why, in the name of reason are atheist's so deliberately unreasonable?</i>

What is so unreasonable about asking for evidence of something before accepting it? Your whole argument consists of fitting God into the gaps in our scientific understanding of the universe. The problem with this, that you will never address, is that when dealing with an unknown an effectively infinite number of hypothesis are possible, not just one. Yet you accept that one (God) over all others as the correct one. Not only that, but you accept your own interpretation of God over other interpretations. Why?
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 | 09:41 AM
Or to put it another way:

Let's assume science can't explain everything in the universe. It's an easy assumption since it's completely true.

Why should we accept God as the answer to these unknowns?
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 | 02:29 AM
Forget Lebbell. When it comes to the hard questions he has no answers. Strange since he believes so strongly. We can be excused for thinking he must have some good reasons or evidence.

In the future, for all your questions about God, please refer to <b>The Official God FAQ</b>.

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 | 07:53 AM
Lebell wrote:
"Your points are full of 'special pleading'."

I missed this first time through. :lol:

'Special Pleading' is the act of spuriously exempting one part of an argument from a general criterion applied to other parts. For example, "Everything needs a creator. Except God."

In fact, I'm doing the opposite of special pleading, I'm asking that a theory that was claimed to be equally as valid as the Theory of Evolution be held to the same standards of proof as Evolution is.
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 | 08:21 AM
The odd thing is, Lebbell has the beginnings of a point, though he appears not to know it.

Everything we know or believe is based on assumptions. Descartes summed this up by deducing that the only thing he could be sure of was that his conscious self existed. COGITO ERGO SUM, "I think, therefore I am."

In fact, Descartes was slightly off. That there is thought might imply that there is a thinker, but it does not follow that the thinker is you. It is quite possible that what you believe is consciousness is merely a thought construct of something else. Thought, then, implies a thinker and nothing more. COGITO ERGO COGITUM, "I think, therefore there is thought." (I think).

The problem is, this is both the begining and the end of that train of thought. To get any further, you have to start making assumptions.

Basically, the philosophy of Methodological Naturalism makes two assumptions. First, it explicitly rejects solipsism, i.e. there is a assumed to be an external reality to experience. Second, it believes deductive logic abides, i.e. it is possible to investigate and explain this external reality using the tools of logic.

But the point is that every philosophy has assumptions, so it's not as if MN is a special case that is somehow truer than any other. What MN has going for it is utility, not surety.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 | 09:18 AM
He is right though, we do waste much of our time here.

We provide all of these rebuttals and arguments knowing full well that people like him won't actually read most of them, and those they do read will simply be ignored. Where we go line by line refuting his arguments he simply skips to the next argument as if he had won the first round, until eventually either he or the next person comes full circle back to the beginning and we get to do it all over again. I sometimes get dizzy on these threads.

I long for an original thinker to argue with instead of someone reading from leaflets.
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 | 10:25 AM
Well I had a stunning and original twist on the Teleological Argument a few months ago. I was going to write it up on the new forum and everything.

Then I read it in almost the exact same form in a story written by Isaac Asimov in 1950.

:down:
Fonzie
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 | 08:22 PM
If I ever met Zhuangzhou I would slap his head and yell "Wake up hippy! How often do you dream of being a butterfly? Just the one dream is it? Not every night? Just one quick flit about? Is it fair to say you've had more experience as a man than a butterfly? just the act of thinking 'Oh hey! Im a butterfly! Instantly proves that your not a butterfly."

But no, I cant prove that butterflies aren't conscious of being butterflies. So maybe hes right.

Id like to say, not that this makes any point at all, But Im a billion times more amazing than any bee or butterfly. If for nothing else other than the fact I can draw a picture of a cheese house. Beat that bee's!
Lebbell
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 | 03:18 AM
God has decided that this debate is closed.

He says he has nothing to prove to this mischievous lot and has given me a direct warning to pass on: "Don't cry for my help if your life is suddenly in peril [as so many of this lot does in desperation], I won't be listening!"

"On judgment day it will be the believers I'll give the pleasure to of throwing this lot into the burning pit" 😊)
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 | 08:57 PM
Lebbell is hearing little voices in his head.

Hmm...if, as Lebbell says, 'God' has decided this debate is over, then logically we can expect no more people to comment on this thread. So if some believer does happen to comment, will that prove conclusively there is no God?

P.S. Lebbell, the next time you talk to god, can you please ask him to stop all the earthquakes, tsunamis, diseases, birth defects and hurricanes? The world thanks you in advance (and wonders why you haven't done that yet).
Lebbell
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 | 12:30 AM
Comment all you like but the 'debate' is over. God has absolutely nothing to prove, he's been on this trip before with sods like you 😊)
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 | 01:07 AM
I guess it's goodbye then. Say hello to Allah for us.
Fonzie
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 | 05:08 AM
HAHA!

Fantastic! That took a lively little turn there. I never gave Lebbell the credit of been that munty.

Did your bees just die? Why the sudden foamy mouthed brimstone talk?

Is anyone here surprised to encounter a theist who just goes off his rag and decides he dosn't need logical argument and starts threatening us with hell?

Wonderful stuff.

He still never answered a single question.

But please keep behaving that way. It only proves what Ive been saying about people like you all along.

have a good life (Just in case we're right and thats all you get.)
Fonzie
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 | 06:00 AM
Also....

Im flattered that god took the time to talk to you to let you know you've won this debate. That God was so incensed by a facetious rascal like me that he came to you to give us a message.

Especially when you take into account an incident in my country a few months ago, In which a man sodomised his own 18 day old son. If you have any sense of proportion or scale, or have ever seen a new born baby you can imagine the extent of the internal trauma. His own son.

But maybe god was busy that day, Or maybe it was one of his 'mysterious ways'. Maybe he was busy talking to you when it happened. or maybe he approved of it.

Im just glad he took time out of his schedule of 'casual observation, except in instances of atheists saying naughty things on the internet' to pass on his message.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 | 07:13 AM
"<i><b>Especially when you take into account an incident in my country a few months ago, In which a man sodomised his own 18 day old son</b></i>"

Watch out! God will probably create a tsunami on the other side of the planet, killing thousands of people, just to teach that guy a lesson!
David B.
Member
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 | 12:58 PM
Lebbell wrote:
"God has decided that this debate is closed."

Well, Chary, you did just ask for an original argument.

"He says he has nothing to prove to this mischievous lot and has given me a direct warning to pass on: "Don't cry for my help if your life is suddenly in peril [as so many of this lot does in desperation], I won't be listening!"

Dear, oh dear!

Deuteronomy 18:19-20, "If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

You're going to hell, dude!

"On judgment day it will be the believers I'll give the pleasure to of throwing this lot into the burning pit"

Good one. Now tell us again how "God is love"?
Huxley
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 | 08:14 PM
To quote Captain Al: "P.S. Lebbell, the next time you talk to god, can you please ask him to stop all the earthquakes, tsunamis, diseases, birth defects and hurricanes? The world thanks you in advance (and wonders why you haven't done that yet)."

Why would you want that? If we didn't have diseases, hurricanes, tsunamis and earthquakes, then we would have to figure out an alternative way to kill people. Also, if we got rid of birth defects, who will make us laugh? Who?

Boy, all you athiests are going to pay. You'll know it when that burst of wind (which will be gods wrath of course) hits you right in the face.
He'll show you. Maybe he'll get you in the form of a piece of toast. You'll see.

Crazy Blokes!
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 | 08:19 PM
Huxley said:
"<i><b>Also, if we got rid of birth defects, who will make us laugh?</b></i>"

I suppose it's a lot easier to laugh at that kind of thing as long as you are not the one with the birth defect. Another example of God's love.
samba
Member
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 | 02:07 PM
This challenge to prove existance of god for big money prize is intended to prove that it can't be done. But it fails because of a fundamental logical fallacy,the assumption that anyone who could do so would be motivated to do so by the money. I call this the Randi fallacy.
Lebbell
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 | 03:19 PM
Inability to prove something does not automatically mean it doesn't exist. 2+2=4 can't be proved either, but it works. There are many other axioms that can't be proven either.

For most of the World's population, God's existence [in some form or forms] will always remain an axiom and it works for them. For Atheists the same logic applies and non-belief works for them. Both types have their evangelists, some doing good and others evil.

On talking to God:-)

"If I talk to God, people say I'm praying. If I say God talks to me, people say I'm schizophrenic!"
samba
Member
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 | 04:30 PM
2+2=4 can be proved,if one accepts the definitions,functions and rules of mathmatics,that's what axiomatic means,that certain things are accepted a priori. What apparently can't be proven is that mathmatics isn't something made up by humans. Just because the equation 'works' doesn't mean it exists. This is what Goedels Theorem shows: the members of a set can only work within the definitions of the set. There is quite a lot of empirical evidence to show that math does reflect the nature of reality.Empirical data is not proof though. So far no one has come up with a peer reveiewable experiment to show that humans don't create the realities they observe and measure.There are several spiritual tradition,including bhuddist and taoist ones that posit no creator or deity,and say what we percieve as reality is really workings of our own consciousness,and that stilling the mind is the way for it to become transparent. This process can take an instant or many ,in some detail the existence of mathmatics,numbers/geometry esp the proportions of phi and piu ,which are observable in all of nature,as the very mechanism of creation.Modern science arose in part from attempts to logically and mathmatically prove the existence of god. Any througg experiment yeilds datd whether the original hypththesis is correct or not.
...all of which has nothing to do with the contest being based on a logical fallacy,the assumption that anyone who could prove the existence of god would do so for 1 million dollars.
Lebbell
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 | 10:09 PM
Member wrote:

"2+2=4 can be proved, if one accepts the definitions,functions and rules of mathmatics"

That's not an explanation of proof, it's 'spin'. Any maths teacher will tell you 2+2=4 cannot be proved. Firstly, you want to start espousing about mathematics, perhaps you should learn to spell the word correctly first[?]

If you are familiar with Goedel, you would also know that he mathematically proved that no ultimate 'truth' can be proved. Neither God nor axioms.
Lebbell
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 | 10:27 PM
Oh and by the way, "2+2=4 is the bedrock that maths is based on. "definitions,functions and rules of mathematics" come AFTER that, not before it so your talking a nonsense and I don't like having to respond to quickly googled, coped and pasted replies that 'seem' to fit the subject they can't even spell.
samba
Member
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 | 01:31 AM
Ok, demonstrate for us then how the equation can be applied without assigning specific quantities to the numerals,and functions to the = and + signs?
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 | 11:05 AM
I never thought I'd see the day when this thread would get sidetracked into a mathematical discussion.
samba
Member
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 | 08:06 PM
How is discussion of the nature and possibility of logical proof a sidetrack to a discussion of the possibility of proving the existence ,or nonexistance of a creator deity?
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 | 09:02 AM
Speaking from experience, logic means nothing to a true believer. After all, logically nothing they say makes any sense. Every great once in a while you will actually come across a believer who admits that's it's completely a matter of faith and nothing more, but most people who argue 'logically' for the existence of God simply reiterate the same nonsense they've been taught all their lives without ever actually thinking about it or addressing any issues you raise against it. Eventually they call you close-minded and leave.
David B.
Member
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 | 07:37 AM
"Ok, demonstrate for us then how the equation can be applied without assigning specific quantities to the numerals,and functions to the = and + signs?"

This has already been done, In Russell and Whitehead's 3-volume work on the symbolic logic of mathematics, Pricipia Mathematica.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

They demonstrated that many of the 'axioms' of mathematics can be derived from pure logic. By the middle of volume 2 they proved that 1+2=2 was logically true, rather than empirically true as had been thought.

Now stop disobeying God.
samba
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 | 01:09 PM
To change symbol sets from mathmatical ones to those of symbolic logic doesn't answer -same wine ,new bottles. The question about equations was related to a response to my assertion that Goedel showed the members of a set can't prove the validity of the set.The person I was responding to was ironic enough to state,'Goedel proved that you can't prove anything'.
The menu is not the meal.Representational systms ,models etc are artifacts of human imagination. as for 'Disobeying God" Your implication is lost on me-you may be imagining you know what I do and don't think. You might be mistaken.
The page you linked includes the following section
"The questions remained

* whether a contradiction could be derived from the Principia's axioms (the question of inconsistency), and
* whether there exists a mathematical statement which could neither be proven nor disproven in the system (the question of completeness).

Propositional logic itself was known to be both consistent and complete, but the same had not been established for Principia's axioms of set theory. (See Hilbert's second problem.)"

G
Lebbell
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 | 02:27 PM
Watch my lips:

God cannot be proved or disapproved. No 'irony' there[?]

That has been my consistent theme. I am only on this thread, not to prove God's existence [a silly notion], but to take issue with preaching atheists who claim God doesn't or can't exist, which like religious faith is no more, and can never be more, than a belief system. Anything Else is a claim of infallibility.

Claims of Infallibility belong only to the delusional. The atheist and religious alike.
samba
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 | 03:20 PM
The Irony was stating proof of the impossibility of proof
"Goedel.. mathematically proved that no ultimate 'truth' can be proved."
I probably agree with your real point. I doubt God can be proved,and I observe many people who style themselves skeptics and rationalists are trying to prove the beleif that there can't be anything 'supernatural'.and the belief that scientific rationality is the only way to derive Truth.This also seems like an unprovable belief based on an act of faith. This act of faith depends in part on the beleif that what is consistent is real. This fetish for consistency seems to me a projection of the survival imperative.Because we are organisms that can only exist in a narrow bandwidth of temp,atmosphere,gravity,etc consistency matters alot. But it's a jump to assume that fundamental truth ,the nature of existence,reality,cosmos,universe reality,the original cause ,whatever you want call it is consistent and aprehendable,measurable as such. It's just another belief system,also known as BS Models aren't real ,they are representations of reality. But people who are caught in their BS can't distinguish the menu from the meal. There is a lot of what I call Modelotry,the worshipping,or fetishizing of models. (There are schools of thought-Taoism for instance that treat the random, the unpredictable, chance as the crucial element. Now that MRIs have been used to observe brain responses in trained meditators supposedly having transcendent experiences,some are saying this proves these experiences originate in the brain.Funny no one says that about other expereices whose brain patterns MRIs will register,say playing chess, or doing math,filling out tax forms.)
For logic to work there must be complete data,if the data are not complete any conclusion is premature. I think it highly unlikely that anyone has enough data to draw a logical conclusion about what is ,and is not possible.provisionla conjecture based on current data seems to me a sensible approach.Conclusions drawn from incoplete data are,froma strictoy logical perspective, statements of belief.
Lebbell
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 | 08:28 PM
For non-believers in God, agnostics get it about right [no belief, for or against, required] and for believers, a dose of doubt doesn't do any harm either and some religious texts encourage it.

Belief in infallibility is a dangerous thing, whether coming from form atheists or believers.
samba
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 | 09:48 PM
Yes agnostics recognize that they don't know. There also seem to be believers who have no inner experience of gnosis,perhaps leading to all sorts of dogmatic,doctrinal foolishness.
David B.
Member
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 | 03:39 PM
samba wrote: "To change symbol sets from mathmatical ones to those of symbolic logic doesn't answer -same wine ,new bottles."

No, logic is different to mathematics, as your own post acknowledges.

"Propositional logic itself was known to be both consistent and complete, but the same had not been established for Principia's axioms of set theory. [...] G
David B.
Member
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 | 03:55 PM
I'm not sure that any atheist here believes in their own infallibility, or in the a=infallibility of science come to that. It only takes to page 2 of this topic before one of us points this out.

Given the nature of the topic, it is natural that it would consist more of people advancing 'proofs' of God, and getting roundly rubbished, than advancing proofs of no God; I'm not sure anyone has even tried to show there is no God here. If you know different, please point it out.

Most, if not all, atheists will accept that it is not possible to prove that God doesn't exist, but that is hardly the point. There are a multitude of gods you can't prove don't exist, and it is not possible to believe in all of them. I start from a default position that I require evidence before I believe something, and there is no evidence for any god, therefore I don't believe in gods. I don't have some magical, private proof that gods do not exist, nor am I undecided on the issue.

I don't believe in one more god than you don't believe in, because I have no evidence of any god.
samba
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 | 06:09 PM
Fair enough but how do you decide what constitutes evidence. How do you know there IS NO evidence? I'm not out to prove you wrong per se,these are epistemelogical,not rhetorical questions.But you seem to be expressing a belief,unless of course you can back it up with data,peer reviewed scientific tests etc.The statement "there is no evidence'is anecdotal not,in classical logic, a sound premise,unless you can prove it.The statement may or may not be true,how can we know?
Atheism is ,by definition, opposition to the notion of deity. Which apears to be the position of one claiming to know what is true and what's not.
My own position ,if I have no evidence on a topic, is that I don't know.



"I start from a default position that I
require evidence before I believe something, and there is no evidence for
any god'"
samba
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 | 06:39 PM
Fair enough,but how do you decide what constitutes evidence? How do you know there "IS NO evidence"? If you treat these as epistemelogical ,not rhetorical questions,something interesting might acrue.
You seem to be expressing a belief,unless you can back it up. The statement "there is no evidence" is anecdotal ,not a sound premise in classical logic,unless you can prove it. The statement ,may or may not be true,how can we know?
Atheism ,by definition describes opposition to the notion of deity.The OED defines it as :"Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god."
This seems to be the position of one who belives he or she knows what is or isn't true. I would describe this is also as a belief.
My own position, when I have no evidence on a topic,is that I don't know.


"I start from a default position that I
require evidence before I believe something, and there is no evidence for
any god, therefore I don't believe in gods."
[email protected]
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 | 08:31 PM
An Atheist affirms the nonexistence of God, or in other words: "there is no God". The problem here for the atheist [not the agnostic] is the assertion is indefensible. They would have to be omnipresent to believe such a claim.

Similar mindsets once proclaimed 'the earth is flat'.


PS. In an earlier post I said 2+2=4 was a maths axiom. I don't know what I was thinking of, but I of course meant 1+1=2 !
samba
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 | 09:33 PM
The context was about the possibility of proving anything. My assertion was meant to convey that if you define your terms you can prove things within a given set, but not beyond,which led to this:

"2+2=4 is the bedrock that maths is based on. "definitions,functions and rules of mathematics" come AFTER that, not before"
I assumed ,and the writer now confirms s/he meant 1+1=2
I see this as provabe,within in the context of the math game, given agreed upon definitions for the symbols 2,+,4,and = .You could put this into symbolic,or propositional logic and the issue would still be the same, I disagree with the idea that the equation comes before the definitions of it's parts, if they are defined there can be proof within the established rules of the game,and not beyond
There is only one aspect of Goedel's stuff I grasp clearly ( it was a mistake for me to drag him into this since I know so very little math),and that is the members of a set work within the set but can't validate it beyond the set.I think that holds true for symbolic logical or mathmatical sets,or,grammar,or ,musical scores,aesthetic systems etc..
David B.
Member
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 | 09:36 AM
samba wrote: "There is only one aspect of Goedel's stuff I grasp clearly ( it was a mistake for me to drag him into this since I know so very little math),and that is the members of a set work within the set but can't validate it beyond the set."

Er, are you sure you are not referring to Zermelo-Franke set theory (ZF for short)? This is an axiomatic set theory that prohibits the kind of self-reference that Godel used to show incompleteness, but because of this, cannot be shown to be consistent.

I'd also read up on PM, as the whole point of the three volume work was to demonstrate mathematical axioms like 1+1=2 from logic (which is complete and consistent) rather than just 'assume' them.

akabilk wrote: "An Atheist affirms the nonexistence of God, or in other words: "there is no God". The problem here for the atheist [not the agnostic] is the assertion is indefensible. They would have to be omnipresent to believe such a claim."

So are you agnostic on the existence of all other gods but yours? Or what about psychics, ghosts, fairies, elves, orcs, dragons, cylons, daleks, cybermen, eddorans, vulcans, klingons, and good-hearted lawyers?

An athiest such as myself, might admit the possibility of gods, but then there is a non-zero possibility of everything; you have to filter. My filter is that stuff that can't be at least semi-reliably demonstrated to have the effects expected of it, isn't worth wasting time on. I can't prove there isn't a miracle cure for all bodily ills either, but I don't go around recklessly endangering my health just because one might exist.

Sherlock Holmes, real or not? Please give absolute proof, remember to show your working out.
Lebbell/akabilk
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 | 01:24 PM
David B wrote:

"So are you agnostic on the existence of all other gods but yours? Or what about psychics, ghosts, fairies, elves, orcs, dragons, cylons, daleks, cybermen, eddorans, vulcans, klingons, and good-hearted lawyers?"

Yes too all of the above [who knows?], but that doesn't mean I waste my time on them either. A kind-hearted Lawyer though is an oxymoron!
samba
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 | 01:36 PM
Thanks for the reccomedations.
Are you aware that Whitehead ,the co-author of PM seemed to view consciousness, as fundamental rather than epiphenomanal? He also is said to have embraced Pantheism,the notion that what is called god is the whole of what exists,and beyond.He spoke of universe being an experiential process not an object ,or thing. I put it: There's no such thing as thing.
I have been making observations I think are germaine to the discussion of the possibility of proving god exists.I don't think it can be proved or disproved by symbol manipulation.
I do think that atheism is a belief system,that those professing atheism should acknowledge this, even if only to themselves.
I take no issue with your position: "stuff that can't be at least semi-reliably demonstrated to
have the effects expected of it, isn't worth wasting time on" It's a personal choice about how you use your time-quite reasonable.In terms of so called objective Truth the sticky point is "effects expected".
I'm inclined to the view that consciousness is the sea of potential from which all phenomena arise. If someone wants to label this emergent process God,or Quantum Interconnectedness( considered proven by Bell's theorem),matters not to me.
I do sometimes find arguments about intellectual category systems,and superficial identifications amusing. I also find it tragic that such things are such effective blocks to communication as to contribute to wars.
Page 22 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 20 21 22 23 24 > 

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