MOH Forum: Prove God Exists and Get $1,000,000

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 23 of 24 pages ‹ First < 21 22 23 24 >
samba	Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 \| 01:38 PM I do,actually ,know at least 4 good hearted lawyers.
David B. Member	Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 \| 06:06 AM I knew a lawyer with a good heart once. The previous owner failed had to read the small print.
David B. Member	Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 \| 06:22 AM If you want to characterise atheism as a belief system, I've no objection. I would argue that my lack of belief in gods is a consequence of my world-view (i.e. the filtering out unproven/unprovable concepts), rather than the world-view itself. As I've said before, yes it is possible that there is a god, klingons and a Hogwart's School for WIzardry; but I don't see a lot of basis for wasting time praying to or searching for any of them. I'm 'a-' a lot of things (he says, setting himself up for the obvious comeback), a-psychics, a-hauntings, even a bit a-string-theory; a-theist is just one more default position.
samba	Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 \| 11:54 AM I tend to think string theory is all tangled up in adding dimensions.I think of dimensions as descriptive of our perceptual,and mental funtioning,I doubt that dimensions exist except as thinking tools-extremely useful ones,but human creations. a model is just a model.The incomesurability problem which string theoory attempts to resolve (I like David Bohm's approach ) the dark matter,and acclerating expansion problems seem to me to show that we are lacking information.I'm sure that when we have sufficient data the current models will seem as naive as the medievel idea that the orbits of the planets exactly describe the platonic solids. So I wonder what you think about Bell's theorem,the nonlocality issue etc. I find it useful to make distinctions between worldview,beliefs and ideals. I find it fairly common for people to express ideals,something one aspires to,as beleifs.But when push comes to shove they don't act on those beliefs,this could include the professed christian who doesn't really love his brother as himself but puts his own interest first,ignoring the consequences,or the professed atheist who starts praying when the car goes off a cliff. I do think identifying conclusions as provisional,as you do w/ "default position" is,in general the wise approach.For the same reason I attempt to use qualifying terms ,such as seems;appears to me etc. Worldview I take quite literally as what one sees. I observe human vision involves the eyes scanning about the sensory field picking up various bits ,which we then assemble into a continuous,steady,coherent picture.A process that includes filling in the blanks where the blind spots are to make it all make sense.Sometimes (typically in low light,and/or viewing distant objects) after we get a better look at something it becomes clear that it is quite different than the image the mind originally selected from the empirical file I posit this filling in the blanks/continuous image process as isomorphic to other thinking processes,it becomes habitual,but when projecting to broad philosophical views of the nature of existence,there isn't the fast feedback loop from the sensory wolrd available for correction. Then there is also the problem of grammar,we arrange our interior models in the syntax,if you will ,of our learned language. Math,with it's vast capacity for precision is a way to try and counteract this distortion,but then we're faced with various discontinuities between our models and our ,processed experiential imprints.It's easy to show the outer world as vibrating spinning energy fields ,mathmatically,but that's not necessarily the way we experience it.
Akabilk	Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 \| 01:21 PM Anyone claiming that their atheism is only a result of their experience or understanding of life and therefore 'not really' a belief system, is hedging away from the meaning of the word atheist. Can anyone imagine a believer saying their belief in God is 'not really' a belief system for the same reasons? Only by default perhaps?
David B. Member	Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 \| 03:10 PM I do not believe in things I have no evidence to the existence of, and gods are a minor subset of these things; therefore I am, by definition, an atheist. I do not, however, grant gods any more special consideration than witches, wizards, ghosts, vampires or rigellian love-slaves. Should I constantly refer to myself as an a-witchcraft, a-wizardry, a-spiritualist, a-vampirist, a-rigellian-love-slaveist, atheist because you think your imaginary friend is somehow deserving of special attention?
David B. Member	Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 \| 03:28 PM @Samba: A good case in point is the many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, which came up on the new forums quite recently. With decoherence, many-worlds and the Copenhagan interpretation to choose between, we're not exactly short of explanations for what we see as 'illogical' quantum effects. But, as Neils Bohr puts it,
samba	Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 \| 09:24 PM Well maybe the math works like that cause the universe does,or maybe not. Maybe the universe did change as the models became more precise. The copenhagen exception among others seems to me be an attempt to grapple with the nature of consciousness and it's place in this circus.There had been a tendency in socalled hard sciences to assume that only what is quantifiable is real. As far as I know there is,as yet, no way prove or disprove the notion that we are effecting out comes by what we do with attention.Apparently some cosmologists have recently suggested our studies are accelerating entropy.I haven't read the stuff,I don't know that they have a case,perhaps it's just absurd paranpia ,or grandstanding,but such questions are unresolved. and while they are assertions as to what's real'possible,probable are seem unresolvable.Certainly reputable scientists entertain the notion that consciuosness is fundamental.Apprently Roger Penrose has also flirted with PanPSychic type views.Perhaps such notions are solipsistic,but I think the jury is still out. Seems odd that we would figure out this math that's key to understanding how everything works.If we didn't invent it,did math came into existence at the moment of the big bang ( the big bang,btw was first proposed by a christian trying to reconcile science and faith)Was it inherent in the seed that exploded to become the sensible universe? Does it become more complex as the universe does?Is it emergent? If the math arose whole,then are the probabilities of the expanding universe predictable ?
David B. Member	Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 \| 10:12 AM Okay, that's more philosophy than I want to attempt on an empty stomache (it's 5PM here and I've yet to have brunch).
David B. Member	Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 \| 10:46 AM "If we didn't invent it,did math came into existence at the moment of the big bang ( the big bang,btw was first proposed by a christian trying to reconcile science and faith)Was it inherent in the seed that exploded to become the sensible universe? Does it become more complex as the universe does?Is it emergent? If the math arose whole,then are the probabilities of the expanding universe predictable ?" You're referring to Georges Lemaitre, I believe, though I don't know that he was religiously motivated in his suggestion. The expansion of the universe had been observed and predicted before Lemaitre, though most scientists, when presented with the obvious conclusion that if we are a finite distance from neighboring galaxies and they are receding from us due to expansion, then at some point in the past they were either (a) not receding, or (b) intimately close to our own galaxy, plumped for (a) (if they accepted expansion at all). As a philosophical aside, would we know if maths was becoming more intricate over time? If we consider that maths is based on set theory, but there are other topoi where set theory's 'axiom of choice' is invalid. If the universe were originally based on a mathematics without the AoC, but later gained it, could we ever know?
[email protected]	Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 \| 03:27 PM Interestingly, the expansion of the universe and the big bang [and a few other bits of science] were referred to 1400yrs ago in the Muslim text the Koran: 21:30 (big bang and life from water) See not those who disbelieve that the heavens and the earth were one piece, and that We clove them asunder; and made We of water, everything alive; will they not then believe? Note* Use of 'we' in Koran translation means God 1st. person. 51:47 (Expansion of the universe) And the heavens, We have built with power and We are expanding it. 51:49 [recent science, everything has a pair: neutron/positron etc] And everything we have created in pairs so that ye may reflect.
Fonzie	Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 \| 11:00 PM wait,,what? Lebbell, what happened? You turned into an insane religious crack pot, but now your o.k? I dont want to get into this 'god' thing any more, I just really want to find out how you get from God personally telling you that you've won the big internet debate, and that he'll let you throw us all into the infernal pit, to - hey ho gang! Its me! The sage old agnostic! Didnt god say this was over? Im glad your ok now though.
[email protected]	Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 \| 11:34 PM well I like science and I also have been studying Judea-Christian religions for 30 odd years. I do find it interesting when the 2 fields cross. We should be clear that science [generally speaking] asks different questions than religion does and it's a bit absurd to use one to dispute the other [liberal rationalism of science questioning religion and vis-a-vis]. I'll tell you another thing that raises questions of existence and that's the $1 mil. prize money put up here[?]
aka/lebbell	Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 \| 11:36 PM I think there is more chance of God existing than the $1m 😊
David B. Member	Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 \| 04:06 AM I think the point was the $1million was unwinnable (from T&R's POV), so it didn't matter if it didn't exist. Actually, Think & Reason now appears to be offering his soul as the grand prize for proving your personal god. I suppose on the grounds that anyone willing to take the challenge is pretty much guaranteed to believe his soul exists. Or maybe he just spent the million dollars? 😊
David B. Member	Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 \| 05:08 AM "Interestingly, the expansion of the universe and the big bang [and a few other bits of science] were referred to 1400yrs ago in the Muslim text the Koran:" Well, not really. That's just a shoehorned-in interpretation. Also, there are various translations of the Koran, but the only text considered authentic is the original Arabic. The original arabic "Ves semae beneynaha bi eydiv ve inna le musiun. Vel erda feraşnaha fe nı'mel mahidun." is variously translated to English as: "With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace. And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: How excellently We do spread out!" "We built the heaven with might, and We widely extended it. And We cradled the earth. And We are the Best of Cradlers." and "We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof). And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!" It's also pre-dated by the bible, Isaiah 42:5(KJV), "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein." Interestingly, I remember reading an old article that argued that this passage predicted the 'steady-state' universe that was the current model at the time. Similarly, 51:49 is often interpreted as referring to the two sexes as in "male and female he created them". Particle interpretations immediately run into difficulty with quarks, which come in 3 varieties. While particle/anti-particle interpretaions would appear to contradict the observation that there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe.
David B. Member	Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 \| 05:26 AM "The original arabic "Ves semae beneynaha bi eydiv ve inna le musiun. Vel erda feraşnaha fe nı'mel mahidun." is variously translated to English as:" Er, obviously that's not the original arabic, but a latinization of the text. Interestingly, the latinization of the arabic for sperm is "nutfun"! :lol:
john	Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 \| 03:04 PM PROOF GOD EXISTS To the point. You are half-God, half-human. A split personality. A polarity. Two states of being. God and human. The God aspect of you functions through the right hemisphere of your brain, which processes creativity (Gods create). The human aspect of you functions through the left hemisphere of your brain, which processes logic (Humans judge). The God aspect of you, or greater self, views your life from a greater perspective that is unlimited. (Visualize the view of the Earth as seen by an astronaut from the space shuttle orbiting around the planet). The human aspect of you or lesser self, views your life from a lesser perspective that is limited. (Visualize the view of the Earth, as seen by the astronaut, upon departing the space shuttle at ground level). The perception of the greater self is of a general nature. The perception of the lesser self is of a specific nature. Both views are true and valid, even though they may be opposed and contradict each other. A view of an object from afar and up close may reveal different features, but both are correct from their vantage point. Back to the point. The greater self provides four functions from its distant vantage point: 1. Guidance 2. Protection 3. Planning 4. Timing (Synchronicity) The greater self's will provided the impetus that placed you in Earth life in the first place (Thy will be done). It sets up an agenda or life plan, for the lesser self to enact. The greater self also provides protection and guidance to carry out the plan. Communication is by intuition and telepathy. It regulates the proper time for events to occur, at the proper moment known as Synchronicity, as it can see from afar, events and time coming together. Things do not happen before their appointed time (Destiny). The greater self also determines when the life journey is through. The greater will has precedence over the will of the lesser self. It knows better. The functions of the lesser self, (the conscious ego) are to follow and execute the will of the greater self. The plan or its reason for being here in the first place. And to follow Its guidance. It is the will of God that places us here. We are here to follow God's plan. God provides protection and guidance. God oversees the timing of events in our lives. God removes us from our existence here. We are as much God as we are human. God is not different and separate from us. We are God. We always have been. As we always will be. The relationship is like the mother to the daughter and the father to the son. A parent/child relationship (Our Father who art in Heaven). The Time Line: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE If you notice the polarity of time, (past, present, future), we exist, at the balance point, or midpoint in the present. Mental Exercise: Trace back through your past and see if you can pick out times when: 1. Guidance was provided. 2. Protection was provided. 3. Planning was recognized. 4.Timing of events was recognized. If you see these effects in your life as real events, then you can see the greater self or God interacting in your life. If these interactions took place in the past, they will continue to occur in your future. This is faith based on proof, from your past, extending into your future. It is based on real events and experiences. The greater self will continue to guide, protect, plan, and time your experience after this life runs its course. You can acknowledge that the greater self has interacted with you since your first day on Earth and is part of what you call yourself, even if you were not fully aware of Its presence in your life 'til now. A new faith for you, based on proof, based on understanding who you really are. God and Human as One.
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 \| 06:50 PM John, you forgot to include the proof.
akabilk	Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 \| 07:54 PM Ditto the Atheists.
samba	Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 \| 09:15 PM Where's the proof that proof is possible?Consistant results?How could consistent results prove that the cosmos is chaotic and accidental? If the cosmos is random,how would consistent laws be derived by us infinitesimal humans using sets of symbols we invented? If we didn't invent math and logic,how do they arise from chaos? This is not an argument for or against the proof of God. These are fundamental questions that I don't think science can answer. Complexity theory may be able to deal with such questions eventually. Despite the cosmological constant looking pretty good right now,much of the standard model of the universe is unlikely to survive dark matter/energy and will look absurd in a generation or two just as geological gradualism which was once treated as settled looks now. We know a lot more than we once did,but of the total possible knowledge,we have such a miniscule fraction that it's absurd for anyone to claim they know what's true,what's possible,what's likely ,or anything of the sort.
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 \| 11:19 PM akabilk said: "Ditto the Atheists." Are you suggesting those who dismiss the idea of supreme being need to prove it? Archaeological and anthropological evidence seems to indicate the human race has existed in its present form for at least 80,000 years. If some uneducated goat herders suddenly start worshipping a deity for the last 2,000 of those years, then I'd say the burden of proof is on them. Logically speaking, one can never disprove the existance of anything. However, we can assign a level of probability to things. Since this "god" of theirs has never shown itself and world events of the past 4.5 billion years have been happening in exactly the same way we would expect on a world with no "god", the level of probablility is essentially zero.
Akabilk	Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 \| 01:41 PM Atheism is a belief system just like religion. An Atheist is saying "there is no God". That's statement of unproven fact. Archaeological and anthropological evidence 'proves' no such thing. What it does prove that mankind is 'wired' with an innate belief in a God in one form or another. Well at least for 99.9% of humans throughout history. Why?
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 \| 08:48 PM "Atheism is a belief system just like religion." Sorry, atheism is NOT a belief system. How can it be? You don't have to do or believe anything. To use my favorite example, it would be like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Everyone is born atheist. For most people, the idea of a god has to be planted in their head. Until then you have no system. The rest are those devious types who figured out how to manipulate the masses for their own personal gain by claiming to have some form of privileged connection with a god. That system has worked quite well down through the ages. It's more commonly known as organized religion. "Archaeological and anthropological evidence 'proves' no such thing." That's correct. Like I said, the evidence seems to indicate that homo sapiens have been around for about 80,000 years. This figure may change as new evidence becomes available. "What it does prove that mankind is 'wired' with an innate belief in a God in one form or another." Where is the evidence for this? Throughout history Gods were a common assumption for phenomena that couldn't otherwise be explained. These gods were replaced as scientific knowledge advanced. And even if your statement were true it would not prove the existance of a god.
samba	Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 \| 01:08 AM "Everyone is born atheist" "For most people, the idea of a god has...." Please provide some evidence ( I'm not even asking for proof ,just evidence) for your contention that you know what "EVERYONE" thinks at birth,and for your contention that you know the empirical process by which most people arrive at ideas about wether there is or isn't a god. Does this include everyone who has ever lived,and ever will live,or most of them? You make references to logic,but in citing everyone,and most people as authorites you construct false syllogisms. This type of logical fallacy is called an Ad Populum ie. Appeal to Popularity. Because you cite false authority,your assertions are not testable ,therefor you are essentially asking that they be accepted on faith.Beleif systems have been known to inhabit this territory. I would call atheism a belief system because it is based on the belief of the atheist that he or she has enough information to draw a conclusion about what is possible and/or probable in a universe that appears to be unimaginably vast and complex. If someone says they have no reason to believe or don't have enough information to know if there is a God,that's significantly different than one claiming to know that no deity exists,or can exist. I've never seen a cancerous tumor,I'm surrounded by gullible people who believe tumors exist-if they do ,why haven't I seen one? This is another logical fallacy. I am not arguing for or against a deist or nondiest postion. I do think those who claim to base their statements on logic should employ logic.
David B. Member	Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 \| 09:58 AM Captain Al wrote: "Sorry, atheism is NOT a belief system." Yes it is, but it is not a religion. "it would be like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby" No, it would be like saying not collecting stamps is an activity. The empty set is still a set. "Everyone is born atheist." [citation needed], and irrelevant. We are not born able to speak or walk, but it is still our natural condition to do so.
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 \| 12:31 PM "Please provide some evidence [that people are born atheist]" Start with yourself. Did you know there was a god before someone told you? I didn't and I have never met anyone who said so. In fact I have never heard even the most vocal religious person ever claim such a thing. Of course that is not proof but I'm sure at some point I would have heard about it. And if we all were born with a knowledge of a god, why do we need Sunday School and those religious books written for children? You must have seen them. Why do they have to introduce us to "the Lord" if we already know? "Because you cite false authority,your assertions are not testable ,therefor you are essentially asking that they be accepted on faith." No. I ask that they be accepted on evidence or lack thereof. The idea that people are born atheist IS testable. One could isolate newborns, raising them until they mature and then question them about any deities. Of course no legitimate scientific organization would allow that type of testing but it is testable. Religions and gods were invented by men, that we know. Those who claim the existance of invisible sky-daddies who watch out for us despite the millions of deaths from floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc, are the ones who need to provide the evidence for them, not me. Until that time, we can say that the probablility of existance is so low as to be nonexistant, the same as we do with Santa Claus, unicorns, tooth fairies and The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ramen. "Yes it is, but it is not a religion." If someone knows nothing about gods or religion they would be atheist. How would that be a belief system? They wouldn't have any opinion about it one way or the other. Now that's not to say some atheists who know about gods that others believe in could not be passionate in their disbelief but it doesn't have to be that way. "No, it would be like saying not collecting stamps is an activity. The empty set is still a set." So you are saying everyone who has ever lived or ever will live is a stamp collector? Interesting. I guess that makes us all bank robbers too. It's just that some people have robbed more banks that the rest of us. When was the last time you answered, "What are you doing?" with, "I'm not collecting stamps".
David B. Member	Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 \| 06:17 AM Either you don't understand set theory, or your deliberately misrepresenting what I said (strawman) because it undermines your argument. You have a set of beliefs, they may not include any beliefs relating to the existence of gods so could be described as atheistic, but it is still both a set and a system of beliefs. In fact it appears that you believe that there are no such things as gods, which would distinguish you from the passive atheism of someone who had not been exposed to the concept. In your case, then, atheism is a belief system like criticising stamp collecting is a hobby.
David B. Member	Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 \| 07:22 AM The claim that atheism is the default position is an assertion that you can't support with proof, which would appear to make it an article of faith on your part. As an argument it is deeply flawed on several levels. 1. It is an example of a naturalistic fallacy. You are concluding that something is desirable (i.e. ought to be) from the
David B. Member	Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 \| 07:23 AM
samba	Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 \| 09:17 AM Start with yourself - OK. I was raised as an atheist-didn't encounter religion until age 5 when I was told people believed in God because they were afraid .I still find it very odd how many professed religious people believe things not supported by the scriptures they claim (male deity ,Just war ,for examples) Just as I find it odd how many people who claim scientific knowlegde profess beliefs not suopprted by logic,or peer reveiwede falsifiable data .My own interest in what might be called the transpersonal has nothng to do with western religion ,which seems ,esp historically,to mostly be a tool for political control. I have had the experience of remembering my consciousness coming into the womb.,and that consciousness was numinous I have also had near death experiences with the same numinous awareness Nothing to do with a Hairy Thunderer,heaven/hell sin/redemption (or whatever simplistic reductionist duality one prefers to filter thing through). I neither believe ,or disbelive in God as an objective reality in a cusal chain. I experience the entire cosmos as being consciousness .I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone that they should believe or disbelive any particular thing-but my experience does not support the view you propound.Your experience may be evidence,if so mine is too. So far,I see no reason to accept the notion that your experience is universal. Have you gone through som esort of focuses process to recover preverbal memories?. "And if we all were born with a knowledge of a god, why do we need Sunday School... " Why do we need to teach children to talk? The innate capacity doesn't develop in the so called wolf children,who aren't raisd by animals or exposed to human speeh,Apprently the window is small and if speech isn;t developed during the critical period ,it is very difficult for the feral child to learn. Of course you realize that in many human societies floods, earthquakes, tsunamis,hurricanes were used as proof of the existance of gods/God.
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 \| 01:06 PM "Your proof that no god affected the past 4.5 billion years of events..." I never said I had proof. Now who's making a strawman? I said the past 4.5 billion years happened just the way we would expect it to if there was no god. Strictly speaking, of course we cannot prove any god did or did not affect the past but as humans we can use our power of reasoning to determine a level of probability. Like the classic example of the teapot in orbit on the opposite side of the sun from earth. Of course we cannot prove it absolutely doesn't exist but no one seriously believes it is there especially since we know the idea was just made up. "The claim that atheism is the default position is an assertion that you can't support with proof" I didn't offer proof but luckily I don't have to. Once again we can use our powers of reasoning. Since the concept of gods was invented by humans it would be up to these people to show otherwise. That is why being born atheist must be the default position. If you know of any gods that have always existed and could make new born babies non-atheist, please let me know. So Dave if you wish to nitpick and split hairs about what defines a stamp collection and what doesn't you are free to do so but I have no desire to spend my days off debating it with you. It's a total waste of time. If you have no stamps and have no intention of getting any, you are not a stamp collector. Again, technically, you might say a set of zero stamps is still a set of stamps but who the hell cares? For everyday practical purposes, it isn't. The same goes for gods. Until they are proven, they don't exist. If societies that have been isolated for thousands of years develop religions, that in no way helps their argument. Those ideas came later and so appear to be merely a common by-product of other human characteristics [sorry, no citation available]. Getting back to the original comment, Akabilk said atheism is a belief system *just* like religion (emphasis mine). I say it isn't. Akabilk said there is proof humans are "wired with an innate belief in a God in one form or another". I say they are not (and I noticed David didn't ask for a citation for Akabilk's statement). The religious have been making up stories about gods for thousands of years but until the question of religion's validity is settled, common sense dictates we stick with known entities and not invoke unproven new ones (Occam's Razor). Akabilk said atheists need to provide proof there is no god. I say they don't. The burden of proof lies solely with those who make the claim.
Akabilk	Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 \| 01:57 PM Commonsense? Reasoning? Get a grip I say Captain Al. Back in time you would have (definitely) been a flat-earther with your logic and 'reasoning'! No teapots circling planets so no gods? Wow, that settles it then doesn't it? 'Babies born atheist by default'. So politically, are they born left or right wing by default? Gay or Hetero? And if they end up being wired as a natural musician or sports sensation, because they didn't know it when they were babies, it's wasn't true? Yep Captain Al, your a mountain of reasoning and logic. Did you know that existed in you as a baby?
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 \| 05:43 PM Akabilk, A long time ago common sense and reasoning was used to figure out the earth is not flat. Its a marvelous thing. You should give it a try sometime. Today, in the 21st century, educated societies do not need gods to explain the unknown. They just keep on looking harder for the real answers. Unfortunately many people such as yourself have been left behind by advances in technology and they still need their supernatural beings to explain things they can't comprehend. Don't worry about it, it's not your fault. Keep on using your computer and the internet. It still works even if you don't know how and need to attribute its apparent magical capabilities to a god.
samba	Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 \| 06:33 PM "Until they are proven, they don't exist." Through this sort of application of 'our power of reasoning' one could conclude that before Magellan circumnavigated the globe,the world was flat-it's roundness didn't exist until it was proven. So did micro-organisms exist before the invention of the microscope? They weren't proven until they were seen,counted measured classified etc. There certainly were people who belived in tiny invisible creatures before the discovery of micro-organisms-though they probably had something else in mind. There were certainly rationlists who found the idea of tiny beasties absurd-obviously not true,if they existed you could see them.There were scientists who refused to look in Gallileo's telescope-you could see the Sun revolving around earth. I can't see any evidence of Dark Matter,black holes,dark energy or 11 dimensions-as far as I know the only evidence of 11 dimensions is mathmatical models showing it's possible. There are also mathmatical models showing time moving in several directions,the possibility of bi-location and all sorts of 'spooky action at a distance'.
Akabilk	Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 \| 09:02 PM Considering what's real and what isn't,lets not forget Quantum physics [illusion or reality?]. Scientists know what it isn't, but not what it is. It shouldn't exist and like the Copenhagen interpretation for it, we are left with the conclusion of the 'Schr
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 \| 11:09 PM Samba said: "Through this sort of application of 'our power of reasoning' one could conclude that before Magellan circumnavigated the globe,the world was flat-it's roundness didn't exist until it was proven." Educated people knew the world was round long before Magellan so try to pick examples that show you have a least a basic grasp of the topic. But since you brought it up, it was the application of logic and reason that showed the flat-earthers were wrong. And you have a problem with this? "So did micro-organisms exist before the invention of the microscope?" Obviously they did but before the microspope was invented no one went to war over the issue. The idea of micro-organisms is not all that far-fetched so no one could say one way or the other. That's logic and reason at work. Propose an idea and then figure out a way to confirm or deny it. "There were scientists who refused to look in Gallileo's telescope" So what? Many others did. That's what any scientifically curious person would do. Who cares about the ones that didn't? Akabilk said: "Schr
Akabilk	Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 \| 11:28 PM No, no, matey, I didn't say "We know cats can be dead or alive" [thanks for the obvious]. Your circling the problem it presents. I said dead AND Alive! I don't expect you to know much about the subject, but look up the problems with Quantum physics. Apart from that, your augment of 'reason' has completely lost the plot!
samba	Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 \| 12:30 AM Capt Al you remind me of some Christians I've met who claim to believe in Jesus,but don't practice his teachings. You claim to believe in Logic and Reason,but then make statements that are not thoroughly reasoned. I don't really know why you don't understand that what I have a problem with is your statement: "Until they are proven, they don't exist" I provided examples that empiracly cast doubt on that assertion. A more reasonable statement would be something like'until they are proven it's difficult to draw a conclusion' or 'we don't have enough data to know' The ones who refused to look through Gallileo's telescope are examples of people who think they already have enough information to decide what is possible and what isn't,and won't accept that anyone else might discover anything that isn't 'obvious'. Remeber ,I'm not making claims for or against gods/God, I'm critiquing your claim that your statements are 'logical' and not expressions of belief.
David B. Member	Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 \| 03:28 AM "I said the past 4.5 billion years happened just the way we would expect it to if there was no god." My mistake, I misread your post as saying "Since this "god" of theirs has never shown itself in world events of the past 4.5 billion years". Point withdrawn. "I said the past 4.5 billion years happened just the way we would expect it to if there was no god." Now all you have to do is prove that assertion, Otherwise it's just an assumption. And no, pointing to a few scientific principles won't cut it. There is neither scientific proof that any current or future understanding of science is sufficient to completely explain the past 4.5 billion years of event nor will there ever be. "as humans we can use our power of reasoning to determine a level of probability" Determine? I'd love to see your working out. "I didn't offer proof but luckily I don't have to." Yes you do. Your claim (and it is yours) is that atheism is the default position, now it's up to other people to prove it isn't? You have no proof it is the default position, yet you repeat the assertion because it is a dogma of your belief system. "Since the concept of gods was invented by humans it would be up to these people to show otherwise." Invented or discovered? Since you claim the former, prove it rather than assert it. "If you have no stamps and have no intention of getting any, you are not a stamp collector." Similarly, I have no belief in God and no intention of getting any, I am not a Christian. This, while generally true, says nothing about whether or not I have a belief system. "The same goes for gods. Until they are proven, they don't exist." So you repeatedly assert. Yet why? Because you say so? Because it is your belief that this is correct? You are saying that your way is right and that everybody else should abide by it, but do not feel constrained to prove it. Your espoused philosophy is provided by fiat as much as any fundamentalists'. "If societies that have been isolated for thousands of years develop religions, that in no way helps their argument. Those ideas came later and so appear to be merely a common by-product of other human characteristics [sorry, no citation available]." If by "appear to be" you mean "can be tentatively concluded as", then that gods are a common by-product of other human characteristics is indicative that they are part of the human condition and are wired into our brains. c.f. Noam Chomsky and universal grammar. If by "appear to be" you mean "look it, but are not", that that is just another assertion that you believe without proof because it otherwise conforms to your world-view. You claim atheism isn't a belief system and only requires you not to believe that gods exist, yet have paraded a range of other beliefs directly arising from or supportive of that one. So you appear to have a system of beliefs associated with atheism of which a core one is that there are no gods. You have the concept of gods, and you reject it by intention. That is not 'no belief in gods', that is 'belief in no gods.
David B. Member	Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 \| 03:33 AM
David B. Member	Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 \| 03:44 AM "Logic and reason are the enemies of religion. No one knew this better than the 16th century theologian Martin Luther." Many other theologians did (and do) embrace reason, so to quote your own argument, "Who cares about the ones that didn't?"
David B. Member	Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 \| 04:11 AM Akabilk wrote: "I didn't say "We know cats can be dead or alive" [thanks for the obvious]. Your circling the problem it presents." It depends on your interpretation of Quantum Theory. In the many-worlds model, for instance, there is a live cat and a dead cat in mutually inaccessible universes. Assuming you are perfectly isolated from the cat, there remains one 'you', but when you open the box you split into two 'you's, dechoherent with each other and entangled with the particular live/dead cat you see in the box. In fact that is a gross oversimplification. There are vastly more than two paths that can be taken by the experiment, so in fact a practically infinite number of cats and universes would result, fairly equally distributed between 'live-cat' and 'dead-cat'. Of course, not all interpretations are that simple... 😊
samba	Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 \| 11:39 AM "...common sense dictates..." Common sense doesn't exist,invoking common sense is an appeal to authority to lend weight to one's argument,but citing a non-existent authority is another logical fallacy. Appeal to common sense is another way of saying 'What's obvious to me should be obvious to everyone' If common sense did exist,I doubt it would dictate.It wouldn't need to.
David B. Member	Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 \| 05:24 AM Actually, samba, it's an 'appeal to the majority', also called an argumentum ad populum or, ironically, an 'appeal to belief', perhaps best paraphrased as "The many believe it, hence it is so.".
David B. Member	Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 \| 05:46 AM Personally, I base my atheism on a principle of sufficiency not unlike Ockham's. As a (former) scientist, I am used to working within the framework of methodological naturalism, which - in its broadest sense - assumes that all the effects in whatever you are studying are amenable to study. Hence whatever your experiment, you assume that the effects in operation follow strict laws, even if they are stochastic ones. If they didn't, then studying it becomes pointless. In fact, that these laws can be suspended by some higher being becomes irrelevant (unless you can positively determine that it is happening in your experiment). But methodological naturalism (the assumption that there are no supernatural effects at work in one specific case) is not philosophical naturalism (the assumption that there are no supernatural effects), and I don
David B. Member	Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 \| 05:48 AM Incidentally, I can think of no greater 'violation' of Ockham's razor that the many-worlds interpretation of QM. I mean, if anyone but a physicist had said, "Okay, to understand this you need to first assume there are an infinite number of whole universes..."?! 😉
David B. Member	Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 \| 06:33 PM But let's for a moment go back to Captain Al's simile, which boils down to: "Atheism is a belief system like not collecting stamps is a hobby." The clear implication is that since not collecting stamps isn't a recognisable hobby, atheism isn't a recognisable belief system. But is that true? Apart from being an appeal to ridicule, clearly it is not, as can be seen by simple a transformation. "An atheist does not have a belief system like someone who does not collect stamps does not have a hobby." The same relationships are present, but now the converse implication seems as ridiculous as the former one. The only possible conclusion is that "atheism is a belief system" is not like "not collecting stamps is a hobby". The analogy is invalid, and the epigram is worthless.
Annie	Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 \| 08:00 AM Do You Believe This??? A girl went to her friends house and she ended up staying longer than planned, and had to walk home alone. She wasn't afraid because it was a small COMMUNITY and she lived only a few blocks away. As she walked along under the bike trail Diane asked, 'God to keep her safe from harm and danger'. When she reached the alley, which was a shortcut to her house, she decided to take it. However, halfway down the alley she noticed a man standing at the end as though he were waiting for her. She became uneasy and began to pray, asking for 'God's protection'. Instantly a comforting feeling of quietness and security wrapped around her, she felt as though someone was walking with her. When she reached the end of the alley, she walked right past the man and arrived home safely. T he following day, she read in the newspaper that a young girl had been raped, in the same alley just twenty minutes after she had been there. Feeling overwhelmed by this tragedy and the fact that it could have been her, she began to weep. Thanking the Lord for her safety and to help this young woman, she decided to go to the police station. She felt she could recognize the man, so she told them her story. The police asked her if she would be willing to look at a lineup to see if she could identify him. She agreed and immediately pointed out the man she had seen in the alley the night before. When the man was told he had been identified, he immediately broke down and confessed. The officer thanked Diane for her bravery and asked if there was anything they could do for her. She asked if they would ask the man one question. Diane was curious as to why he had not attacked her. When the policeman a sked him, he answered, 'Because she wasn't alone'. She had two tall men walking on either side of her.' Amazingly, whether you believe or not, you're not alone. (people) will not stand up for 'God'....... PS: God is always there in your heart and loves you no matter what 'If you deny me in front of your friends, I shall deny you in front of my Father' 'STAND UP FOR HIM' '93% of people wont pass this on.... Will you be one of them???'
Annie	Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 \| 08:05 AM GOD IF SOMEONE HAD A GUN HELD IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE AND ASKED YOU IF YOU BELIEVED IN GOD, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? SAY NO AND FEEL ASHAMED THE REST OF YOUR LIFE? OR SAY YES, I DO, AND DIE STANDING UP FOR GOD? IF YOU'D SAY NO, THEN DELETE THIS E-MAIL. IF YOU WOULD SAY YES, AND STAND UP FOR JESUS CHRIST, PLEASE READ THIS AND PASS ON. Note: This is a true article that was printed in a southern newspaper less then a year ago TAKE A DEEP BREATH BEFORE READING THIS There was an atheist couple who had a child. The couple never told their daughter anything about the Lord. One night when the little girl was 5 years old, the parents fought with each other and the Dad shot the Mom, right in front of the child. Then, the dad shot himself! The little girl watched it all. She then was sent to a foster home. The foster mother was a Christian and took the child to church. On the first day of Sunday School, the foster mother told the teacher that the girl had never heard of Jesus, and to have patience with her. The teacher held up a picture of Jesus and said, "Does anyone know who this is?" The little girl said, "I do, that's the man who was holding me the night my parents died." If you believe this little girl is telling the truth that even though she had never heard of Jesus, he still held her the night her parents died, then you will forward this to as many people as you can. Or you can delete it as if it never touched your heart. Funny, isn't it? Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how everyone wants to go to heaven provided they do not have to believe, think, say, or do anything the Bible says. (Or is it scary?) Funny how someone can say "I believe in God" but still follow Satan (who, by the way, also "believes" in God). Funny how you can send a thousand 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how the lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene pass freely through cyberspace, but the public discussion of Jesus is suppressed in the school and workplace. Funny how someone can be so fired up for Christ on Sunday, but be an invisible Christian the rest of the week. Not be able to forgive and forget!!! (Are you laughing?) Funny how when you go to forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it to them. Funny how I can be more worried about what other people think of me than what God thinks of me. (Are you thinking?) Pass this on only if you mean it. Yes, I do Love God
Annie	Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 \| 08:19 AM Oh yes... and all you who dont beleive that god exists ill pray for you! ( yes I know that youre busiy laughing and you think that ist stupid to pray) but you know god loves you SO much!! I know youve heard alot of people say that but its true.. Just look around you ... look at a tree... mankind cant make something as little as a tree... what about a Flower and sand can we just go poof and ther will be Trees and Flowers and Animals? We as humans will never be able to understand how these things are possinble only god can ... an for those of you who beleive in scientists I found a little text on the innternet it would be great if Youd have aread through it : were looking into the trajectories of known asteroids and meteors so we wouldn't send astronauts and satellites up only to have them bump into something. Satellite orbits have to be laid out in terms of where the heavenly bodies will be so that the whole thing won't become a head-on traffic collision." As they ran the calculations of the planets' positions back and forth over the centuries, "the computer stopped and put up a red flag. ... They called in the service department to check it out". When the technicians asked what the problem was, the operators replied "Well, the computer show's there's a day missing somewhere in elapsed time." After rechecking everything, the scientists "scratched their Educated Idiot Boxes." Finally a religious member of the team suggested the answer might lie in the events recorded in the Book of Joshua. With some difficulty he persuaded the others to check out the possibility. When they did, they "found the explanation was close, but not close enough. The elapsed time in Joshua's day was only 23 hours and 20 minutes, not a whole day." Then the religious member recalled that in the Second Book of Kings, God makes the Sun go backwards ten degrees as a sign to King Hezekiah. "There was the whole twenty-four hours, the missing day that the space scientists had to make allowance for in the logbook." I know most of you wont beleive this but... I hope you do !! God bless
Annie	Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 \| 08:23 AM So you didnt beleive what I wrote and you checked it up on the internet? well you know I cant force anyone to beleive what they cant see and stuff but I hope for your saje that you do... I totally agree with Timmo from england The Truth: Except for the reference to the astronauts, this version of 'the Missing Day' story has been around for nearly 30 years. Harold Hill was a real person and he was the president of the Curtis Engine Company in Baltimore, Maryland. He had converted to Christianity as an adult and became a popular speaker among Christian groups, because he was a successful businessman, claimed to be a consultant to NASA, and did presentations on science and the Bible. One of his most popular presentations was the story of the Missing Day. Harold Hill apparently told the story without much notice until October 1969, when a columnist for a small American newspaper was told about one of his speeches and was given some notes about the Missing Day. She was so intrigued, that she wrote it up and it was published. The columnist's name was Mary Kathryn Bryan and her column appeared in the Spencer Evening World in Spencer, Indiana. According to the newspaper, the results of that particular column were 'simply unbelievable'. They started receiving requests from all over the world for reprints of the article, and finally stopped counting when the number of inquiries passed 1,500. The total number of cards, letters and telephone calls is now in the thousands. From that article, the Missing Day story found its way into untold numbers of magazines, newspapers, gospel tracts, books and now emails. Harold Hill himself included it in a Christian book which he wrote. The story has several problems, however. One problem is that apart from Harold Hill, there is no known source for the NASA story. For many years, whenever anyone wrote to him about it, he sent a form letter which said he had misplaced the source of the information, but would send everybody a copy when he found it. The source never materialized. In his subsequent book, Hill dismissed all skepticism about the story and said that no substantiation was needed. His attitude was that if people believed it and it drew them to spiritual things, it was justified. Another problem is that NASA has denied that Harold Hill was ever one of its consultants. James S. Lacy, from the Office of Public Relations for NASA, wrote in a letter to a journalist that the only trace they could find of a Harold Hill having any connection with NASA was a person who was involved in contracting for the operations and maintenance of some diesel engine operations. Further, according to a letter I have from the NASA Public Affairs office in Washington, 'There is no truth to the recurring story that NASA uncovered a lost day in the movement of the Earth.' It is interesting to note that an attempt to explain Joshua's long day from a scientific standpoint was published many years before Harold Hill's NASA story. In the 1930s, Dr Harry Rimmer wrote a book called 'The Harmony of Science and Scripture', in which he drew from an 1890 book by Yale professor C.A. Totten. Using popular biblical chronologies of the time, Totten concluded that the world was created 4,000 years before the birth of Christ, on Sunday, September 22, 4000BC. However, he said that the calendar calculations showed that September 22 was actually a Monday, and not a Sunday, and that the error was probably because of Joshua's missing day. Totten also makes reference to the Hezekiah story in 2 Kings and argues that this accounts for another missing 20 minutes or so. Totten's calculations sound suspiciously familiar to the NASA story. The bottom line seems to be that there is a lot still missing about 'the Missing Day'.
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 \| 11:23 AM Annie in ?? (La La Land) said: *Do You Believe This???* No. How do you know the raped girl did not ask for god's protection? If the rapist could see two tall men why couldn't the unharmed girl see them? This story is total bullshit just like your religion. If god is so loving why does he allow so much tragedy, even to believers? If you believe the newspapers you quote so much, why do we constantly read about deaths and injuries at church events? Of course the reason is this god only exists in your mind. Here's a way you can convince us though. Go to the local zoo and walk into a lion's cage, then a tiger's cage and then a gorilla's cage while asking for your god's protection. That's a good test of your faith. I'm sure we will read the results in the paper. IF SOMEONE HAD A GUN HELD IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE AND ASKED YOU IF YOU BELIEVED IN GOD, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? SAY NO AND FEEL ASHAMED THE REST OF YOUR LIFE? OR SAY YES, I DO, AND DIE STANDING UP FOR GOD? IF YOU'D SAY NO, THEN DELETE THIS E-MAIL. IF YOU WOULD SAY YES, AND STAND UP FOR JESUS CHRIST, PLEASE READ THIS AND PASS ON. I like how you assume the person with the gun would shoot you for believing. Maybe they intend to shoot you if you don't believe. *Note: This is a true article that was printed in a southern newspaper less then a year ago* Please give a link to this article so we can check it out. Don't just cut and paste some story that makes you feel good and expect us to take it as fact. *Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.* You may want to believe otherwise but there has never been a better time in history than today. Look at all the luxuries and labor saving devices we have. Until relatively recently there was no law and order. The world has always been a dangerous place. Don't forget, we compete for food and resources just like all the other species in the animal kingdom. *Funny how someone can say "I believe in God" but still follow Satan (who, by the way, also "believes" in God).* If they really believed in a god, why would they risk angering him by "following Satan"? But a bigger question is why would an all-powerful god who creates whole universes, create another entity that is equally power to himself? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? were looking into the trajectories of known asteroids and meteors so we wouldn't send astronauts and satellites up only to have them bump into something. Satellite orbits have to be laid out in terms of where the heavenly bodies will be so that the whole thing won't become a head-on traffic collision. Do you know even the most basic things about science and technology? The closest heavenly body is the moon which is a quarter of a million miles away. We don't have to worry about satellites or astronauts bumping into it. If anything we track heavenly bodies so we can "bump" into them. That's important if we intentionally send spacecraft there. *and all you who dont beleive that god exists ill pray for you!* Please don't waste your time. I can take care of myself. If you have a direct line to god, please pray for world peace and an end to birth defects, tsunamis, earthquakes, floods and cancer. Come to think of it, why haven't you done this already? You must be one cold, callous bitch to allow this suffering to go on when you could just put in a simple request to stop it. Don't worry we won't hold it against you since your god is only imaginary and praying doesn't accomplish anything. 'STAND UP FOR HIM' '93% of people wont pass this on.... Will you be one of them???' Yes.
Mark	Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 \| 01:01 AM What god? The Catholic God, Hindu God, Buddhist God or the Mormon God? The only one that qualifies for consideration is the Catholic God.
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 \| 03:26 PM Mark, Why does the Catholic god deserve any more consideration than the others? They are all equal. Equally fake, that is.
Carter	Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 \| 10:49 PM Captian Al said, "They are all equal. Equally fake, that is." CORRECTION. Except for the Olympian Gods. They are definitely not fake. No way, No how! hah!
Private	Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 \| 06:29 PM I am trying to get a response from someone about the reward for the existence of God.
Dasheng	Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 \| 05:02 PM I think the reward for the existence of God is eternal paradise if you happened to believe in him, eternal torment if you did not.
Hector L. Colon	Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 \| 10:13 AM You need proof that their is a GOD, well I'm not sure if you will ever believe in my GOD, but I hope some day you will come to your senses. In the meantime just look in your wallet and you'll find your god is real enough. Repent! For the Kingdom of GOD is at hand!
Won it All	Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 \| 12:12 PM I was sent here by the Lord, and will like to recieve a cheque.
Page 23 of 24 pages ‹ First < 21 22 23 24 >

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